CHV20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application for a constitutional writ under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) brought by the applicant, a citizen of India, against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The application sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant the applicant a Protection (Subclass 866) Visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 2007 and, after a period as an unlawful non-citizen, applied for the Protection Visa in February 2020, claiming a fear of harm from a particular family in India due to a past relationship.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal, in affirming the delegate's decision, had engaged in a review that was affected by jurisdictional error. This required the Court to consider whether the Tribunal had properly assessed the applicant's claims of fear of harm, including the alleged threats made by the ex-girlfriend's father, the applicant's lack of contact with the ex-girlfriend for eight years, and the feasibility of seeking protection from the police in India.

Street J found that the Tribunal had not committed jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had adequately identified the applicant's claims, including the alleged threats and the reasons for the relationship's termination. The Tribunal's questioning regarding the applicant's lack of contact with the ex-girlfriend and the potential for police protection demonstrated a proper engagement with the evidence and the applicant's submissions. The Tribunal's reasoning, which considered the ex-girlfriend's father achieving his objective of ending the relationship, was a relevant factor in assessing the ongoing nature of the alleged threat. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive consideration of the evidence and the applicable legal framework.