Efp19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to refuse a protection visa to the applicant, who claimed a fear of harm in Iran. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the respondent. The case was heard by Judge Driver in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal failed to engage intellectually with corroborative material provided by the applicant, whether its findings were unreasonable, and whether it unreasonably assessed the applicant’s religious conviction. The applicant also contended that the Tribunal failed to comply with sections 424A or 425 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

Judge Driver found that the Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error in relation to the application of section 5J(6) of the *Migration Act*. The Court applied the principles established in *Minister for Home Affairs v Omar*, which require a decision-maker to engage in an active intellectual process with significant and clearly expressed representations made by an applicant. This involves more than merely acknowledging the representations; the decision-maker must bring their mind to bear on the facts and arguments presented. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's treatment of the applicant's corroborating evidence, particularly concerning his conversion to Christianity, did not meet this standard of active intellectual engagement, leading to a jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the Court ordered that a writ of certiorari issue to quash the Tribunal's decision of 25 September 2019, and a writ of mandamus issue requiring the Tribunal to redetermine the review application according to law.