El Ater v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, El Ater, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The Minister's delegate had refused the application on the basis that the applicant's claims of persecution were not substantiated by sufficient evidence. The matter came before Dowdy J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant argued that the delegate failed to adequately consider and assess all of the evidence presented in support of his protection visa application, thereby failing to undertake the assessment required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The applicant contended that this failure amounted to a jurisdictional error, rendering the decision invalid.

Dowdy J found that the delegate's reasons for decision did not demonstrate a proper consideration of all the evidence. The delegate's assessment focused on certain aspects of the applicant's claims while appearing to overlook or inadequately address other significant pieces of evidence that were crucial to the overall assessment of the risk of persecution. The Court applied the principle that a failure to properly consider all relevant evidence can constitute a jurisdictional error, as it means the decision-maker has not truly applied their mind to the question they were required to determine.

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