Hossen v Minister for Immigration

In *Hossen v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant, Mr Hossen, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the Minister's decision was affected by an error of law, specifically concerning the assessment of Mr Hossen's claims of persecution. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had failed to properly consider and assess the evidence relating to Mr Hossen's claims of past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution. This involved determining whether the delegate had applied the correct legal test for assessing protection claims under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and associated regulations, and whether the delegate's findings of fact were reasonably open on the evidence presented.

Judge Jarrett found that the delegate had made an error of law by failing to adequately consider the cumulative effect of the evidence presented by Mr Hossen. The delegate had, in effect, compartmentalised the evidence, assessing each piece in isolation rather than considering how they collectively supported the applicant's claims. The Court reiterated the principle that when assessing claims of persecution, decision-makers must consider the totality of the evidence, including any inconsistencies or contradictions, and determine whether, viewed as a whole, it establishes a well-founded fear. The delegate's failure to engage with the evidence in this holistic manner constituted an error of law.

Consequently, the Court quashed the decision of the Minister to refuse the protection visa and remitted the application to the Minister for redetermination in accordance with the law.