EKN17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In EKN17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the appellant challenged the decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to dismiss his application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA). The appellant, a failed asylum seeker, sought to remain in Australia on the basis of fear of persecution if returned to Iraq. The IAA had found that the appellant would not be of interest to the Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) militia, which had previously threatened him, and that he was therefore not at risk of persecution if returned to Iraq.

The court considered several legal issues, including whether the IAA failed to take into account the possibility it was wrong, whether the IAA’s decision involved illogical reasoning, and whether the IAA conducted the "review" contemplated by s 473CC of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court found that the IAA had erred in equating a "low risk" with a "remote chance" of harm, and that the IAA had failed to conduct the "review" contemplated by s 473CC. The court found that the IAA had fallen into jurisdictional error in failing to consider the reasonably foreseeable future. The court found that the IAA had not considered whether the appellant would be of interest to the AAH in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that this was a jurisdictional error.

The court found that the IAA had failed to take into account the possibility it was wrong in relation to the appellant’s credibility, and that this was a jurisdictional error. The court found that the IAA had failed to consider whether the appellant had previously stated that his parents had kept the August 2013 letter, and that this was a jurisdictional error. The court found that the IAA had failed to consider whether the appellant’s evidence was inherently implausible, and that this was a jurisdictional error. The court found that the IAA had failed to consider whether there were any explanations for why the appellant’s parents did not keep the August 2013 letter, and that this was a jurisdictional error. The court found that the IAA had failed to consider whether the appellant would be of interest to the AAH in the reasonably foreseeable future, and that this was a jurisdictional error.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and ordered that a writ of certiorari be directed to the second respondent to quash the decision of 1 September 2017, and that a writ of mandamus be directed to the second respondent to exercise the power under s 473CC of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) according to law. The court ordered that the first respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal as agreed or assessed.