CCU16 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, CCU16, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia without a visa, 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] FCA 1576 and related case law concerning the definition and identification of a "particular social group" for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Court also had to determine if the Tribunal had adequately considered all relevant evidence when assessing the real chance of harm.

Judge Riley found that the Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error by failing to adequately engage with the evidence and submissions concerning the applicant's claimed membership of a particular social group. The Tribunal's reasoning was found to be insufficient in explaining why the applicant's asserted group did not meet the criteria for a particular social group, particularly in light of the evidence presented. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision could not stand.

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