Bux17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application for a constitutional writ under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) brought by the applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant him a protection visa. The applicant's claims for protection were based on fears of harm due to his Chinese ethnicity, his Buddhist religion and a potential conversion to Christianity, and harm from his father.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal's conclusions concerning country information were irrational and not reasonably formed on the basis of the evidence, as alleged in the applicant's sole ground of appeal. This ground essentially invited the Court to undertake a merits review of the Tribunal's findings, which is beyond the scope of judicial review for jurisdictional error. The Court was required to determine if the Tribunal's assessment of the country information, which led to adverse findings regarding the applicant's claims of fear of harm based on ethnicity and religion, was legally unreasonable or lacked a rational and probative basis.

Street J found that the applicant's ground of appeal lacked meaningful particulars and therefore could not succeed. The Court held that the Tribunal's findings of fact, including its assessment of country information, were matters within its jurisdiction. The Tribunal's preference for certain country information over other evidence provided a rational and probative basis for its adverse findings, and these findings were not of a kind to which no reasonable decision-maker could come. The Court also noted that a typographical error in the Tribunal's decision did not constitute jurisdictional error, and the existence of a s 438 Certificate did not cause the applicant practical injustice.

The application for a constitutional writ was dismissed.