DMG18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant, DMG18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The Minister's decision was based on the applicant's alleged failure to satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which requires a person to have a well-founded fear of persecution.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's delegate had properly considered and assessed the applicant's claims of persecution, particularly in relation to the risk of harm from non-state actors. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if the delegate's assessment of the applicant's credibility and the objective country information relied upon was reasonable and adequate, such that the delegate's conclusion that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution was not vitiated by jurisdictional error.

Justice Kelly found that the delegate's assessment of the applicant's credibility was flawed. The delegate had failed to adequately explain why certain aspects of the applicant's account were disbelieved, and had not properly engaged with the objective country information that supported the applicant's claims of potential harm from non-state actors. The Court reiterated the principle that a delegate must provide a clear and logical explanation for their findings of fact and credibility, and must demonstrate that they have considered all relevant evidence. Consequently, the Court concluded that the delegate's decision contained jurisdictional error.

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