FBC18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, FBC18, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Home Affairs concerning a protection visa. The core of the dispute revolved around the assessment of the applicant's credibility by the decision-maker.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's adverse credibility findings constituted jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court had to consider whether these findings were legally unreasonable, lacked a logical or rational basis, or were based on a false factual premise, thereby tainting the decision-making process.

In its reasoning, the court applied principles established in *DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* and *AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*. These principles clarify that while credibility findings are primarily for the administrative decision-maker, they are not immune from judicial scrutiny. Jurisdictional error may arise if such findings are illogical, irrational, or lack probative value. The court emphasised that a high degree of caution is necessary to avoid impermissibly engaging in merits review, requiring a demonstration of "extreme" illogicality rather than mere disagreement with the decision-maker's reasoning. The court noted that an adverse credibility finding that is critical to the ultimate decision can lead to a finding of jurisdictional error if it is found to be irrational or illogical.