Eht17 v Minister for Immigration

In the Federal Court of Australia, Dowdy J considered an application for judicial review brought by the applicant, Eht17, against a decision of a Delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The dispute concerned the validity of the applicant's application for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa. The Delegate had found the application to be invalid by force of sections 91N and 91P of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), on the basis that the applicant was a dual national of both Syria and Lebanon.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant was indeed a dual national of Syria and Lebanon, and if so, whether the Delegate’s decision that the protection visa application was invalid by operation of sections 91N and 91P of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) was affected by jurisdictional error. The Court was required to determine the applicant's nationality by reference to the laws of Syria and Lebanon, as stipulated by section 91N(6) of the Act.

Dowdy J reasoned that the evidence before the Court, including expert evidence of foreign law, established that the applicant was a dual national of Syria and Lebanon. The applicant was born in Syria to parents who held dual Lebanese-Syrian citizenship, conferring Syrian citizenship at birth under Syrian law. Furthermore, the applicant held Lebanese citizenship by descent from his father, evidenced by a valid Lebanese passport. As there was no evidence of loss or forfeiture of either citizenship, the applicant was considered a national of both countries. Consequently, the Court found that sections 91N and 91P of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) applied, rendering the protection visa application invalid. The Court concluded that no jurisdictional error had been established.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.