Hunjan v Minister for Immigration

In *Hunjan v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a visa. The applicant had applied for a Protection visa, which was refused by the delegate of the Minister. The applicant then sought review of that decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant subsequently filed an application for judicial review in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims for protection. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the AAT had failed to adequately assess the risk of harm the applicant would face if returned to their country of origin, and whether the AAT had applied the correct legal test in determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa.

Judge Vasta found that the AAT had made a jurisdictional error. The Court reasoned that the AAT had failed to properly consider all the evidence before it regarding the applicant's claims of persecution. The AAT's decision was found to be based on an incomplete and therefore flawed assessment of the risk of harm, meaning it had not applied the correct legal principles in determining the applicant's eligibility for a Protection visa.

Consequently, the Court set aside the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination in accordance with the law.