Ghotra v Minister for Immigration

In *Ghotra v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant, Mr Ghotra, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether Mr Ghotra had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in their assessment of Mr Ghotra's claims of persecution. Specifically, the court had to determine if the delegate had failed to properly consider all relevant evidence, including the applicant's subjective fear and the objective country information, when assessing the likelihood of him suffering harm if returned to his country of origin. The court also considered whether the delegate's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence.

Judge Street found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider certain aspects of the evidence presented by Mr Ghotra, particularly in relation to the specific nature of the threats he alleged. The court reiterated the principle that a delegate must not only consider the evidence but also engage with it in a meaningful way, explaining why certain evidence is accepted or rejected. The delegate's adverse credibility findings were found to be insufficiently reasoned, failing to provide a clear explanation for why Mr Ghotra's account was not accepted. Consequently, the court concluded that the decision under review was affected by jurisdictional error.

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