MZAJD v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, MZAJD, a Pakistani Pashtun Sunni-Islam, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) that rejected their claims for a Protection (Class XA) visa. The dispute centred on the MRT's handling of both Convention-based protection claims and complementary protection claims. The matter came before Judge Wilson of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the MRT had properly identified and addressed the applicant's claims for complementary protection, and whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error in its rejection of these claims. The applicant also contended that the MRT had failed to adequately differentiate between the criteria for Convention-based protection and complementary protection when rejecting both, despite these claims having distinct legal bases.

Judge Wilson found that the MRT had failed to properly address the applicant's complementary protection claim. The Tribunal's reasons, which referred to "the reasons set out above" to reject both types of claims, did not demonstrate that it had properly considered the specific material and legal requirements applicable to complementary protection. This failure to properly identify and address the issues for its consideration constituted jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the Court established that jurisdictional error had occurred and issued constitutional writs accordingly.