FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Anor

The applicant, FTZK, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decision, which was made following a delegate's adverse assessment of FTZK's claims for protection. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the delegate's assessment of FTZK's claims was affected by an error of law, specifically whether the delegate failed to consider relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations when assessing the risk of harm to FTZK in their country of origin. This involved an examination of the criteria for granting a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the principles of administrative law concerning the proper exercise of statutory power.

The High Court considered the nature of the delegate's assessment and the evidence before them. Their Honours found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider certain aspects of FTZK's claims, particularly concerning the risk of persecution based on their membership of a particular social group. The Court reiterated the principle that when assessing claims for protection, decision-makers must engage with the specific factual matrix presented by the applicant and apply the relevant legal criteria without overlooking material considerations. The delegate's assessment was found to be vitiated by an error of law because it did not properly address the entirety of the risk faced by FTZK.

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.