BRJ16 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, BRJ16, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration concerning a protection visa application. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the decision-maker had made findings of fact without any supporting evidence, which the applicant contended constituted jurisdictional error. The matter was heard by Judge Howard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the decision-maker had made a finding of fact for which there was no supporting evidence, and if so, whether this constituted jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the alleged absence of evidence related to a jurisdictional fact, as is required for a "no evidence" submission to succeed in establishing jurisdictional error in the context of migration decisions.

Judge Howard applied the principles established in *AUG17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor* [2017] FCCA 1874 and other relevant authorities. The court reiterated that a finding of fact without evidence is an error of law, but jurisdictional error only arises if the unsupported finding concerns a jurisdictional fact. In the context of a protection visa application, the relevant jurisdictional fact is the decision-maker's "state of satisfaction" that the visa criteria have been met, as per *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS* (2010) 240 CLR 611. The court noted that the applicant bore the onus of proving the absence of evidence and that without a transcript of the hearing before the delegate, it was difficult to be satisfied that no evidence supported the findings. The court also accepted that a finding of fact is not necessary to support a conclusion of non-satisfaction.

The decision does not specify the final orders or outcome of the case, as the provided text focuses on the legal principles and reasoning applied by the court in addressing the applicant's submissions.