CJZ17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, CJZ17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which refused to grant protection visas to the applicant and their child. The AAT had found that the applicant's claimed conversion to Christianity, which formed the basis of their fear of harm in Iran, was not genuine.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had erred by failing to consider the risk of harm to the applicant arising from the *fact* of their conversion, irrespective of its genuineness. The applicant contended that the AAT's focus on the genuineness of the conversion, to the exclusion of considering the potential harm flowing from the *perception* of conversion by Iranian authorities, constituted a jurisdictional error.

Judge Driver held that the AAT was not required to consider the risk of harm based on the perception of conversion if it had validly found that the conversion itself was not genuine. The AAT's task was to assess the applicant's claims as presented, and if the core of those claims – the genuine conversion – was not accepted, then the subsequent assessment of risk flowed from that factual finding. The court found no jurisdictional error in the AAT's approach.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.