COVATU v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Mr. Covatu, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the Minister's delegate had properly assessed the risk of harm Mr. Covatu would face if returned to his country of origin, specifically concerning allegations of persecution by a non-state actor. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's assessment of the risk of persecution was affected by an error of law. This involved determining whether the delegate had failed to consider relevant information, had taken into account irrelevant considerations, or had applied the correct legal test for assessing the risk of harm under the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

Judge Smith found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to adequately consider the evidence relating to the alleged persecution by the non-state actor. The Court reasoned that the delegate's assessment had been unduly narrow, focusing on the state's inability or unwillingness to protect Mr. Covatu rather than the broader question of whether he would suffer persecution. The legal principle applied was that a delegate must undertake a comprehensive assessment of all relevant claims and evidence to determine if a real chance of persecution exists, even if the persecutor is a non-state actor.

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