Evq20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

Evq20 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) to refuse to grant 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, a decision that was subsequently affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant then brought proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before Street J was whether the delegate's decision, as affirmed by the AAT, was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant contended that the delegate failed to properly consider and assess the evidence relating to their claims of persecution, thereby failing to afford procedural fairness. This involved an examination of whether the delegate had adequately engaged with the applicant's subjective fears and the objective country information relevant to those fears.

Street J found that the delegate's assessment of the applicant's claims was superficial and lacked the necessary depth of consideration required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and relevant case law. The court determined that the delegate had not adequately grappled with the specific nuances of the applicant's ethnicity and political opinions in the context of the country information. This failure to properly assess the evidence constituted a jurisdictional error, as it meant the delegate did not exercise their power according to law. Consequently, the decision of the AAT affirming the delegate's refusal was vitiated by this error.

The court made orders setting aside the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.