EXT20 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, EXT20, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decision, which was made under s 48B of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter was heard by Kiefel CJ and Gordon J in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the protection visa application was vitiated by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court was required to determine whether the Minister had failed to consider relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing EXT20's claim for protection, thereby exceeding or misconstruing the power conferred by s 48B of the *Migration Act*.

Their Honours found that the Minister's delegate had failed to properly consider the evidence presented by EXT20 regarding the risk of harm upon return to their country of origin. The delegate had, in their reasoning, placed undue emphasis on certain aspects of the evidence while downplaying or overlooking other crucial elements that supported EXT20's claim for protection. This selective approach constituted a failure to consider relevant considerations, rendering the decision affected by jurisdictional error. The court applied the principles of administrative law concerning the proper exercise of statutory power, emphasizing that decision-makers must engage with all relevant evidence and not arbitrarily disregard material facts.

The High Court ordered that the application for judicial review be granted, the decision of the Minister be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.