EYG18 v Minister for Immigration

EYG18 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia by boat, claimed to fear persecution in their country of origin due to their ethnicity and political opinions. The Minister had refused the visa on the grounds that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa, specifically that they were not a refugee within the meaning of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the Refugee Convention. The matter came before Judge Vasta in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. This required the Court to consider whether the delegate of the Minister had properly assessed the applicant's claims of persecution, including the credibility of the evidence provided and the objective likelihood of harm upon return to their country of origin. The Court was also required to determine if the delegate had adequately considered all relevant factors in accordance with the *Migration Act* and applicable case law.

Judge Vasta found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error in assessing the applicant's claims. The Court reasoned that the delegate had failed to properly consider significant aspects of the applicant's evidence regarding the specific nature of the persecution they feared, particularly in relation to their ethnicity and political affiliations. The delegate's assessment was found to be overly general and did not engage with the detailed information provided by the applicant, leading to an unreasonable conclusion that the applicant would not face a real chance of significant harm. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning the assessment of refugee claims, emphasizing the need for a thorough and individualized evaluation of each applicant's circumstances.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the respondent for reconsideration according to law.