CAA18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, CAA18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the Minister for Home Affairs' refusal to grant a protection visa. CAA18 claimed to fear harm in Malaysia, but the AAT did not believe the applicant's claims. The applicant advanced unparticularised grounds of review.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the AAT had committed a jurisdictional error in its review of the protection visa refusal. Specifically, the court considered whether the applicant had presented sufficient grounds for review that would necessitate a detailed examination by the court, or if the grounds advanced were too vague to establish jurisdictional error.

Judge Driver found that the grounds of review advanced by the applicant were unparticularised and did not disclose any arguable jurisdictional error on the part of the AAT. The court applied the principle that for judicial review to succeed, the applicant must demonstrate a specific error of law or jurisdictional error by the decision-maker. As no such error was identified or sufficiently particularised, the application for judicial review was dismissed.