CZO18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, CZO18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia by boat, claimed to fear persecution in their country of origin due to their ethnicity and political opinion. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant's claims were not credible and that they did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court was asked to consider whether the delegate had failed to undertake a proper assessment of the applicant's claims, thereby failing to exercise their jurisdiction according to law. This involved examining whether the delegate had adequately considered all relevant evidence and whether the adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the material before them.

Judge Vasta found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error. The court reasoned that the delegate's assessment of the applicant's claims was superficial and failed to engage with the substance of the evidence presented. In particular, the delegate's adverse credibility findings were not adequately explained or supported by the material, leading to a conclusion that the delegate had not properly considered the applicant's subjective fears and the objective circumstances of their country of origin. The court applied the principles of administrative law, emphasizing the obligation of decision-makers to undertake a comprehensive and reasoned assessment of all claims made by an applicant for protection.

The court set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the application for a protection visa to the Minister for redetermination according to law.