Khan v Minister for Immigration

Khan (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant him a protection visa. The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, claimed to fear persecution in his home country due to his membership of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. The primary judge had dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review.

The Federal Court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was not affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court considered whether the delegate failed to adequately assess the applicant's claims of persecution, particularly in light of the country information available at the time of the decision. The central legal issue was whether the delegate's assessment of the risk of persecution was reasonable and based on a proper understanding of the relevant country information.

The Court found that the delegate's assessment of the applicant's claims was flawed. It was held that the delegate had not adequately considered the available country information regarding the treatment of Ahmadis in Pakistan, including the potential for arbitrary detention, discrimination, and violence. The Court applied the principle that a delegate must undertake a genuine and rational assessment of the evidence and country information, and that a failure to do so constitutes jurisdictional error. The Court concluded that the primary judge had erred in upholding the delegate's decision.

The Federal Court set aside the orders of the primary judge and remitted the application for judicial review to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia for redetermination according to law.