EUR18 v Minister for Home Affairs

EUR18 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs (the respondent) to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, who had arrived in Australia by boat, claimed to fear persecution in their country of origin due to their ethnicity and political opinions. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant's claims were not credible and that they did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Egan in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. This involved examining whether the delegate had properly considered all relevant considerations and had not taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing the applicant's claims for protection. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if the delegate had failed to adequately assess the applicant's subjective fear of persecution and whether the delegate had applied the correct legal test in determining whether the applicant would more likely than not face persecution if returned to their country of origin.

Judge Egan found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error in assessing the applicant's claims. The Court held that the delegate had failed to properly engage with the applicant's evidence regarding their ethnicity and political opinions, and had not adequately considered the potential consequences of returning the applicant to their country of origin. The delegate's assessment was found to be superficial and did not demonstrate a proper understanding of the applicant's subjective fears. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning the assessment of protection claims, emphasising the need for a thorough and objective evaluation of all available evidence.

Consequently, Judge Egan quashed the delegate's decision and remitted the application for a protection visa to the Minister for redetermination according to law.