JAMIL v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Mr. Jamil, 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 delegate had properly considered and assessed the risk of harm Mr. Jamil would face if returned to his country of origin, specifically in relation to his claims of persecution based on his membership of a particular social group. The matter came before Judge Barnes of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision miscarried by failing to adequately assess the real chance of harm Mr. Jamil might suffer, thereby breaching the requirements of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). This involved determining whether the delegate had applied the correct legal test for assessing the risk of persecution and whether the delegate's findings of fact were supported by the evidence before them.

Judge Barnes reasoned that the delegate had erred in their assessment of the risk of harm. The Court found that the delegate had not properly considered the cumulative effect of the various factors presented by Mr. Jamil, nor had they adequately engaged with the expert evidence concerning the general country situation and its specific implications for individuals like the applicant. The delegate's assessment was found to be superficial and did not demonstrate a proper understanding of the objective circumstances that would expose Mr. Jamil to a real chance of persecution. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning the assessment of protection claims, emphasising the need for a thorough and holistic evaluation of the evidence.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister's delegate be set aside and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.