Rahimi v Minister for Immigration

Rahimi (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant him a visa. The applicant had applied for a Protection Visa (Class XA) under s 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Minister's delegate had refused the application, and this decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The applicant then sought review of the RRT's decision in the Federal Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the RRT had erred in law by failing to consider, or adequately consider, the applicant's claims of persecution based on his membership of the Hazara ethnic group and his religious beliefs as a Shia Muslim. Specifically, the applicant argued that the RRT had not properly assessed the risk of harm he would face upon return to Afghanistan, particularly in light of the prevailing political and social conditions.

Judge Street found that the RRT had failed to properly engage with the applicant's evidence regarding the specific risks faced by Hazaras and Shia Muslims in Afghanistan. The RRT's decision had relied on general country information without adequately addressing the particular circumstances and vulnerabilities of the applicant. The Court applied the principles of administrative law, requiring that decisions affecting individuals be based on a proper consideration of all relevant evidence and submissions. The RRT was found to have misapplied the relevant legal tests for assessing claims of persecution.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal be set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.