BYH17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, BYH17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned the assessment of whether the applicant would be a person to whom Australia would have protection obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in their assessment of the applicant's claims for protection, specifically concerning the risk of persecution or harm upon return to their country of origin. This involved a determination of whether the delegate had properly considered all relevant evidence and applied the correct legal principles in assessing the subjective fear of the applicant and the objective likelihood of harm.

Judge Riley found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider certain aspects of the applicant's evidence, particularly in relation to the specific nature of the harm feared and the reasons for that fear. The Court reiterated the principles that a delegate must not only consider the applicant's subjective fear but also assess the objective reasonableness of that fear based on available country information. The delegate's assessment was found to be deficient in its engagement with the applicant's detailed account of past experiences and the potential for future harm.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.