Raibevu v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor

In *Raibevu v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor*, the applicant, Mr Raibevu, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant him a protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia by boat and claimed to be a citizen of Fiji. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application on the grounds that the applicant was not a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and that the applicant had not established that he was a citizen of Fiji. The applicant contended that the delegate's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

The central legal issue before Gageler J was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. This required the Court to consider whether the delegate had failed to exercise the power conferred by the *Migration Act* or had exercised that power in a manner that was beyond its scope. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the delegate had made an error in finding that the applicant had not established his Fijian citizenship, and if so, whether this error amounted to jurisdictional error.

Gageler J reasoned that the delegate's finding that the applicant had not established his Fijian citizenship was a finding of fact made within the scope of the delegate's power. The *Migration Act* requires an applicant for a protection visa to establish their identity and nationality. The delegate considered the evidence presented by the applicant and concluded that it was insufficient to establish Fijian citizenship. This was a factual determination, not an error of law or a failure to exercise power. Therefore, the delegate's decision did not involve jurisdictional error.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.