CQY18 v Minister for Home Affairs

CQY18 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs (the respondent) to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who claimed to fear harm in Bangladesh, had their claims disbelieved by the primary decision-maker and subsequently by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant alleged numerous errors in the AAT's decision-making process.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the AAT had committed a jurisdictional error in its review of the refusal of the protection visa. The applicant contended that the AAT had made multiple errors in its assessment of the evidence and its application of the relevant migration law.

Driver J found that the applicant had not established an arguable case of jurisdictional error. The Court concluded that the AAT's findings of fact, including its disbelief of the applicant's claims, were open to it on the evidence before it. The Court held that the alleged errors did not amount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an unlawful exercise of jurisdiction, which are the hallmarks of jurisdictional error. Therefore, the applicant's application for judicial review was dismissed.