Cad17 v Minister for Immigration

Cad17 (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 arrived in Australia by boat, claimed to fear persecution in their country of origin due to their membership of a particular social group. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant's claims were not substantiated and that they did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. The applicant subsequently sought review of this decision in the Federal Court.

The primary legal issue before Neville J was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. This involved determining whether the delegate had properly considered all the evidence before them, including the applicant's claims of persecution, and whether the delegate had applied the correct legal principles in assessing the applicant's eligibility for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the delegate had adequately assessed the applicant's claims regarding their membership of a particular social group and the real risks of harm they faced.

Neville J found that the delegate's decision contained jurisdictional error. His Honour concluded that the delegate had failed to adequately assess the applicant's claims regarding their membership of a particular social group and the associated risks of harm. The delegate's assessment was found to be superficial and did not engage with the substance of the applicant's evidence in a way that was required by the *Migration Act* and relevant case law. Consequently, the delegate's decision was vitiated by error.

The court ordered that the decision of the delegate be quashed and remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.