MZYHF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor

The applicant, MZYHF, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned the assessment of whether the applicant would be a person to whom Australia would have protection obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Hayne J of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's delegate had erred in law by failing to consider, or adequately consider, the risk of harm to the applicant from non-state actors in the applicant's country of origin. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the delegate's assessment of the risk of harm was based on a proper understanding of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act* and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), particularly concerning the definition of "well-founded fear of persecution" and the scope of Australia's protection obligations.

Hayne J reasoned that the delegate's decision-making process had been vitiated by an error of law. His Honour found that the delegate had focused too narrowly on the risk of harm from state actors and had failed to give sufficient weight to the possibility that the applicant could face persecution from non-state actors, even if the state was unable or unwilling to protect them. The Court applied the principles established in *K v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs* [2004] HCA 30, which affirmed that Australia's protection obligations extend to risks posed by non-state actors where the state cannot provide protection. The delegate's failure to properly assess this risk meant that the decision was not open to be made under the relevant legislative framework.

The High Court ordered that the application for judicial review be granted, the decision of the Minister's delegate be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.