FEZ17 v Minister for Immigration

FEZ17 (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 without a visa, claimed to fear persecution in their country of origin due to their membership of a particular social group. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on internal review. The applicant then brought proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the delegate had failed to properly consider the applicant's claims regarding their membership of a particular social group and the real risks of persecution they faced, thereby failing to exercise their jurisdiction according to law. The applicant contended that the delegate had misunderstood or misapplied the criteria for assessing membership of a particular social group and had not adequately assessed the objective likelihood of harm.

Judge Street found that the delegate's assessment of the applicant's claims concerning their membership of a particular social group was inadequate. The delegate's reasoning did not sufficiently engage with the evidence presented by the applicant, particularly in relation to the defining characteristics of the alleged social group and how the applicant fit within it. Consequently, the Court concluded that the delegate had failed to properly consider a material part of the applicant's case, leading to a jurisdictional error. The Court therefore set aside the delegate's decision.