GHH18 v Minister for Home Affairs

GHH18 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs (the respondent) to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia on 15 March 2018, claimed to be a citizen of Iran and alleged that they feared persecution if returned to Iran due to their political opinion and membership in a particular social group. The respondent's delegate refused the protection visa application on 18 December 2019, finding that the applicant's claims were not substantiated. The applicant subsequently sought review of this decision 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. This involved determining whether the delegate had properly considered all the evidence before them, including the applicant's claims of persecution, and whether the delegate's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence. The Court was also required to consider whether the delegate had applied the correct legal test for assessing claims of persecution under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

Judge Egan found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error in assessing the applicant's claims. The Court held that the delegate's adverse credibility findings were not reasonably open on the evidence presented. Specifically, the delegate failed to adequately explain the basis for rejecting certain aspects of the applicant's evidence, which were crucial to the assessment of their protection claims. The Court concluded that the delegate's reasoning was flawed and did not demonstrate a proper understanding or application of the relevant legal principles concerning the assessment of protection visa applications.

The Court quashed the delegate's decision and remitted the application for a protection visa to the respondent for redetermination according to law.