MANSOUR v Minister for Immigration

In *Mansour v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant, Mr Mansour, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant him a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether Mr Mansour had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the Minister's delegate had erred in law by failing to properly consider and assess the evidence presented by Mr Mansour regarding his claims of persecution. Specifically, the court was asked to determine if the delegate had adequately assessed the subjective and objective elements of Mr Mansour's fear, and whether the delegate's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence.

Judge Street found that the delegate had failed to properly assess the evidence in accordance with the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The delegate's adverse credibility findings were not adequately supported by the evidence, and the delegate had not given sufficient weight to certain documentary evidence that corroborated Mr Mansour's claims. The court applied the principles of administrative law, including the requirement for decision-makers to undertake a comprehensive and balanced assessment of all relevant 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.