Daf17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Daf17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to refuse their application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm in Iraq, but the IAA had found these fears to be not well-founded. The applicant argued that the IAA had made a jurisdictional error in its assessment.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the IAA had erred in law by finding that the applicant could modify their behaviour to avoid harm from non-state actors, and whether this constituted a jurisdictional error in the assessment of the applicant's claim for complementary protection.

Judge Driver found that the IAA had indeed made a jurisdictional error in its consideration of complementary protection. The Authority's reasoning that the applicant could modify their behaviour to avoid harm from non-state actors was found to be an insufficient basis for refusing protection, particularly in the context of the specific risks identified. The court applied principles of administrative law concerning the proper construction of relevant legislative provisions and the standard of review for decisions of the IAA.

The court ordered that the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority be set aside.