NAMK v MIMIA

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the interpretation of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) in a dispute between NAMK and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (MIMIA). The applicant, NAMK, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister had correctly applied the criteria for granting a protection visa under the *Migration Act* and *Migration Regulations*. Specifically, the court was required to determine the proper interpretation of the phrase "real chance" in the context of assessing whether an applicant would be persecuted if returned to their country of origin.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the Minister's assessment had been based on an erroneous interpretation of the "real chance" test. Their Honours found that the Minister had applied an overly stringent standard, requiring a higher degree of certainty than was mandated by the legislation. The correct approach, as articulated by the Court, was to consider whether there was a real, rather than merely a speculative or remote, possibility of persecution. The Court emphasised that the assessment should focus on the likelihood of harm, not on the probability of its occurrence.