EFY19 and Anor v Minister For Immigration and EID19 v Minister For Immigration and EDD19 v Minister For Immigration and EFU19 and Anor v Minister For Immigration

The applicants, EFY19 and others, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration concerning their protection visa applications. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the delegate had properly considered country information regarding the operation of Iranian citizenship laws when determining that the applicants were "Excluded Fast Track Applicants" under section 5(1)(a)(i) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This determination was crucial for the subsequent assessment of their protection claims under section 91N(1) of the Act. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision, which concluded that the applicants held dual Iraqi and Iranian citizenship, was affected by jurisdictional error. This error would arise if the delegate failed to adequately consider relevant country information, specifically concerning Article 989 of the Iranian Civil Code and the principles established in the "Mansour Farrokhi Article," when forming the opinion that the applicants fell within the definition of an Excluded Fast Track Applicant.

Judge Humphreys found that the delegate's decision that the applicants held dual Iraqi/Iranian citizenship was indeed affected by jurisdictional error. The Court reasoned that the delegate had not properly considered the implications of Iranian citizenship laws as they applied to the applicants, particularly in light of the provided country information. This failure meant that the delegate's conclusion regarding the applicants' status as Excluded Fast Track Applicants was vitiated. Consequently, the applications for judicial review were upheld.