BYM16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor

The applicant, BYM16, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) regarding an application for a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the IAA had properly applied the "complementary protection" criterion under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and whether it had taken into account irrelevant considerations or misinterpreted key legal concepts. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the IAA erred in its interpretation of "intentional infliction of harm" by requiring subjective intent, whether it made findings regarding "new information" that were erroneous, and whether it failed to apply the complementary protection criterion in accordance with the *Migration Act*. Additionally, the court considered whether the IAA had taken into account irrelevant considerations in its assessment.

In its reasoning, the court addressed the applicant's argument that the IAA had taken into account an irrelevant consideration by stating there was no evidence of police collusion with Minister Rishad, despite accepting the Minister's involvement in the applicant's arrest. The court found this ground failed because it selectively quoted the IAA's reasons and ignored the broader context. The IAA had found no evidence, beyond the applicant's assertions, of collusion aimed at destroying evidence of court protests, and the applicant had not demonstrated this finding to be incorrect. The court concluded that no jurisdictional error had occurred in the IAA's decision.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application. Leave to amend the application and rely on additional grounds was also refused due to a late application and a failure to provide evidence explaining non-compliance with court orders.