DQI16 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, DQI16, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who is of Vietnamese nationality, claimed to fear persecution in Vietnam due to their alleged involvement in a criminal organisation. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application on the grounds that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Street in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the delegate had failed to properly consider the applicant's claims of persecution, particularly in relation to the alleged criminal organisation involvement, and whether the delegate had applied the correct legal test when assessing the risk of harm. The applicant argued that the delegate had made findings of fact that were not supported by the evidence and had failed to adequately assess the real chance of harm.

Judge Street found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the applicant's evidence regarding their alleged involvement with a criminal organisation and the potential consequences of such involvement in Vietnam. The Court held that the delegate had impermissibly substituted their own view for that of the applicant's evidence without adequate justification. The principles applied included the requirement for decision-makers to genuinely consider all relevant evidence and to apply the correct legal standard when assessing claims of persecution. The Court emphasised that a failure to do so constitutes a jurisdictional error.

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