BNZ16 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, BNZ16, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who is a citizen of Afghanistan, claimed to have suffered persecution in their home country. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Nicholls in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was asked to consider whether the delegate had failed to properly consider the applicant's claims of persecution, particularly in relation to the risk of harm from non-state actors and the availability of internal relocation. The applicant argued that the delegate had applied an incorrect legal test when assessing these claims and had failed to adequately engage with the evidence presented.

Judge Nicholls found that the delegate had indeed made a jurisdictional error. The Court reasoned that the delegate had applied an overly restrictive interpretation of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act* and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) concerning the assessment of claims for protection. The delegate had failed to give sufficient weight to the possibility of harm from non-state actors and had not properly considered the practical realities of internal relocation for the applicant. The Court reaffirmed the principle that delegates must undertake a comprehensive and holistic assessment of an applicant's claims, taking into account all relevant evidence and applying the correct legal standards.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister's delegate be set aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.