DRN16 v Minister for Immigration

DRN16 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who is from Iran, claimed to fear persecution on the basis of his imputed political opinion and his membership of a particular social group. The delegate of the Minister had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant's claims were not credible and that he would not be at risk of persecution if returned to Iran. The applicant then sought review of this decision in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant argued that the delegate failed to properly consider and assess the evidence relating to his claims of imputed political opinion and membership of a particular social group. The applicant contended that the delegate's adverse credibility findings were not open on the evidence and that the delegate had failed to apply the correct legal test for assessing the risk of persecution.

In her Honour's reasoning, Judge Kendall found that the delegate had indeed made jurisdictional error. Her Honour determined that the delegate's assessment of the applicant's claims was superficial and lacked adequate reasoning. The delegate had failed to engage with significant portions of the evidence presented by the applicant, including expert reports and country information, which supported his claims. Furthermore, the delegate's adverse credibility findings were not adequately explained or supported by the material before her. Her Honour applied the principles established in cases such as *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh* and *Applicant V2019/15398 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*, emphasizing the need for a thorough and reasoned assessment of all relevant evidence when determining claims for protection visas.

Consequently, Judge Kendall set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the application for a protection visa to the respondent for reconsideration according to law.