CGK16 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, CGK16, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in section 5(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Street of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's subjective fear of persecution was objectively reasonable, having regard to all the relevant considerations, including the applicant's personal circumstances and the general country information pertaining to their claimed country of origin. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Minister's delegate had properly assessed the credibility of the applicant's claims and whether the delegate's conclusion that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear was supported by the evidence.

Judge Street applied the principles established in cases such as *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh* and *Applicant S20/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs*. The Court considered the applicant's account of events, their reasons for leaving their country of origin, and the objective country information. The delegate's assessment was found to be flawed because it failed to adequately consider certain aspects of the applicant's evidence and did not properly weigh the subjective fear against the objective country information. The Court emphasised that a well-founded fear requires both a subjective apprehension of harm and an objective basis for that apprehension.

The Court found that the delegate's decision misapplied the legal test for a well-founded fear. Consequently, the decision of the Minister was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.