EPU19 v Minister for Home Affairs

In EPU19 v Minister for Home Affairs, the applicant, EPU19, sought a judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant him a protection visa. The applicant argued that he was a refugee within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and thus eligible for a protection visa. The matter came before the Federal Court of Australia, where the Minister conceded that the decision should be quashed and an order in the nature of mandamus should be made, requiring the Minister to determine the matter according to law. The Court then made such an order.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it should make supplemental orders in the nature of peremptory mandamus, directing the Minister to grant the protection visa. The applicant argued that the Minister had deliberately delayed in complying with the Court's order, and that the Court should compel the Minister to grant the visa. The Minister argued that the Court should not make such an order, as it would be inappropriate to interfere with the Minister's discretion in determining whether to grant a protection visa.

The Court found that the Minister had not deliberately delayed in complying with the Court's order, and that it was not appropriate to make an order in the nature of peremptory mandamus. The Court held that the Minister's decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa should be set aside, and that the Minister should determine the matter according to law. However, the Court did not direct the Minister to grant the visa, as that would interfere with the Minister's discretion.

The Court varied the order made on 27 February 2020 to require the Minister to determine whether or not to grant a Protection (Class XA) visa to the applicant according to law on or before 8 May 2020. The Court did not make an order as to costs.