CFG15 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, CFG15, 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 *Love v Commonwealth* [2020] HCA 3 and *Thomsen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2021] FCA 1065 in its determination of the applicant's claims. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider the evidence presented and had applied an incorrect legal test in assessing the particular social group.

Judge McNab found that the Tribunal had indeed made an error of law. The Court reasoned that the Tribunal had not properly engaged with the evidence concerning the applicant's alleged membership of a particular social group, nor had it adequately considered the potential for harm if the applicant were returned to their country of origin. The Court emphasised that the Tribunal must undertake a holistic assessment of the evidence and apply the correct legal principles when determining claims of persecution based on membership of a particular social group.

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