EXL19 v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.2)

This matter came before Judge Humphreys of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to affirm the refusal of their Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) visa. The core of the dispute concerned whether the IAA had adequately considered the applicant's claims of a real risk of harm as an apostate under Iranian law, and whether the IAA's findings regarding the applicant's genuine adherence to Christianity and understanding of religious tenets were logically and evidentially sound.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the IAA constructively failed to review the applicant's claims by not properly considering the risk of harm as an apostate, and whether there was an insufficient logical or evidentiary basis for the IAA's findings that the applicant was not a "genuine" Christian, despite evidence of baptism and church attendance. Further issues involved whether the IAA erred in concluding the applicant was ignorant of elements an adherent might reasonably know, misapplied section 5J(6) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by attributing the applicant's political and social media activities to strengthening his claims, or failed to consider claims under the complementary protection criterion. The court also considered whether the IAA misapplied section 5J(3)(i) by suggesting the applicant should modify his behaviour to avoid persecution, and whether the IAA erred by failing to distinguish between claims under the refugee criterion and complementary protection criterion concerning non-practising Muslims and apostates.

Judge Humphreys found that no jurisdictional error had been made out. The reasoning involved a detailed examination of the IAA's decision-making process, concluding that the Authority had considered the relevant aspects of the applicant's claims. The court determined that the IAA's findings, including those concerning the applicant's religious beliefs and activities, were supported by a sufficient logical and evidentiary basis. The application was therefore dismissed.