CAP17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, CAP17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration 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, a decision that was subsequently affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant then brought proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims regarding membership of a particular social group and the risk of persecution. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the Tribunal had properly applied the principles established in *K v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2017] FCAFC 100 concerning the identification and assessment of particular social groups for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Court also had to determine if the Tribunal had adequately considered all relevant evidence in reaching its conclusion.

Judge Jarrett found that the Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the evidence relating to the applicant's alleged membership of a particular social group. The Court held that the Tribunal had adopted an overly narrow approach to defining the group and had not adequately engaged with the applicant's specific circumstances. Applying the principles from *K v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, the Court determined that the Tribunal's reasoning was flawed and that it had not discharged its duty to make findings of fact and assess the evidence in accordance with the law.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.