BZG17 v Minister for Immigration

BZG17 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who is of Pakistani origin, claimed to fear persecution in Pakistan due to their membership of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant did not hold a genuine fear of persecution and that Australia was not the only safe country for the applicant. The matter came before Driver J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the delegate had failed to properly consider the applicant's claims of persecution as a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, and whether the delegate had adequately assessed the risk of harm to the applicant in Pakistan, including the availability of internal relocation. The Court also considered whether the delegate had properly applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) in assessing the applicant's claims.

Driver J found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to adequately assess the risk of persecution faced by members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan. The Court held that the delegate had not given sufficient weight to the evidence presented regarding the systemic discrimination and persecution faced by this minority group. Furthermore, Driver J concluded that the delegate had not properly considered the availability and effectiveness of internal relocation as a protection measure for the applicant, given the widespread nature of the persecution. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning the assessment of protection claims, emphasizing the need for a thorough and objective evaluation of the evidence and the relevant legal framework.

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