Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor; Plaintiff M106 of 2011 by his Litigation Guardian, Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor

The High Court of Australia considered two applications for judicial review concerning the lawfulness of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant visas to two asylum seekers. The applicants, identified as Plaintiff M70/2011 and Plaintiff M106 of 2011 (by his litigation guardian, Plaintiff M70/2011), challenged the Minister's decisions on the basis that they were affected by jurisdictional error. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of provisions within the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) relating to the assessment of protection claims.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister, in refusing to grant the protection visas, had failed to undertake the necessary considerations mandated by the *Migration Act* and *Regulations*. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Minister's delegate had properly considered all relevant information, including adverse information, and whether the delegate's reasoning process demonstrated a failure to engage with the substance of the applicants' claims for protection, thereby constituting a jurisdictional error. The Court also considered the implications of the delegate's reliance on a particular assessment of the applicants' credibility and the weight given to certain evidence.

The Court, in a joint judgment, found that the delegate's decision-making process involved a failure to properly consider the material before them, particularly concerning the adverse information that had been provided. The delegate had, in effect, treated the adverse information as determinative without adequately assessing its reliability or its impact on the overall assessment of the applicants' claims for protection. This failure to undertake a comprehensive and reasoned assessment of all relevant information, including the applicants' evidence and the adverse information, amounted to a jurisdictional error. The Court therefore held that the decisions to refuse the visas were invalid.

The High Court ordered that the applications for judicial review be upheld, that the decisions of the Minister to refuse the protection visas be quashed, and that the matters be remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.