EBE18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, EBE18, 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 membership of a particular social group. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant's claims were not substantiated and that they did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the delegate's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court was asked to consider whether the delegate had failed to adequately assess the applicant's claims regarding their membership of a particular social group and the real chance of persecution they faced. This involved an examination of the delegate's understanding and application of the relevant criteria under the *Migration Act* and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), as well as the principles of administrative decision-making.

Judge Baird found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the evidence presented by the applicant concerning their membership of a particular social group. The delegate's assessment was found to be superficial and did not engage with the nuances of the applicant's claims, particularly in relation to the nexus between their alleged persecution and their social group affiliation. The court applied the principles established in cases concerning the assessment of protection claims, emphasising the need for a thorough and evidenced-based evaluation of the applicant's fear of persecution.

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