Plaintiff M75-2009 v MIAC

The plaintiff, identified as M75-2009, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (MIAC) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decision, which was made under section 48B of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Crennan J of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse to grant a protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Minister, in considering the plaintiff's application under section 48B, had failed to take into account a relevant consideration or had taken into account an irrelevant consideration, thereby vitiating the decision.

Crennan J reasoned that section 48B of the *Migration Act* requires the Minister to consider whether it would be in the public interest to grant a protection visa to a non-citizen who is subject to a removal pathway. The Minister's decision-making power under this section is not unfettered and must be exercised according to law. His Honour found that the Minister had failed to consider a crucial aspect of the plaintiff's circumstances, namely the risk of refoulement, which was a mandatory consideration under the relevant international conventions and domestic law. This failure to consider a relevant consideration constituted a jurisdictional error.

Consequently, Crennan J made orders quashing the decision of the Minister to refuse the protection visa and remitted the application to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.