CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

The applicant, CNY17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned the applicant's claim for protection based on a fear of persecution in their country of origin. The case was heard by Kiefel CJ and Edelman J in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in law by failing to consider, or adequately consider, the applicant's claims regarding the risk of persecution by non-state actors, specifically in relation to the applicant's alleged membership of a particular social group. The court was required to determine if the delegate's assessment of the evidence concerning these claims was reasonable and consistent with the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

Their Honours found that the delegate had failed to properly assess the applicant's claims concerning persecution by non-state actors. The reasoning focused on the delegate's approach to the evidence, which appeared to dismiss the applicant's assertions without adequate engagement. The court applied the principles of administrative law, particularly the requirement for a decision-maker to genuinely consider all relevant evidence and claims put forward by an applicant. The delegate's failure to adequately address the specific risks identified by the applicant, particularly in relation to their alleged membership of a particular social group and the actions of non-state actors, constituted an error of law.

The High Court ordered that the application for judicial review be granted, the decision of the Minister be set aside, and the matter be remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.