MZAPJ v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, MZAPJ, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned the Minister's assessment of MZAPJ's claims for protection, specifically relating to the risk of harm upon return to their country of origin. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in law in their assessment of MZAPJ's claims for protection, particularly in relation to the application of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and relevant case law concerning the assessment of risk of harm. This involved examining whether the delegate had properly considered all relevant information and applied the correct legal tests in determining whether MZAPJ would suffer persecution or harm contrary to Australia's non-refoulement obligations.

Judge Riley found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to adequately consider a significant piece of evidence that was crucial to MZAPJ's claim. The Court reasoned that a failure to properly engage with and assess all relevant evidence, particularly evidence that could establish a real chance of harm, constitutes an error of law. The principles of administrative law, including the duty to afford procedural fairness and the requirement for a decision-maker to undertake a proper consideration of the evidence, were applied.

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