RAM v Minister for Immigration

RAM (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who was of Pakistani origin, claimed to fear persecution in Pakistan due to his membership of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. The Minister had refused the visa on the basis that the applicant's claims were not substantiated and that he did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Street of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by an error of law. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the delegate of the Minister had failed to properly consider all relevant evidence, including the applicant's subjective claims of fear and the objective country information pertaining to the treatment of Ahmadis in Pakistan. The applicant also contended that the delegate had failed to afford him procedural fairness.

Judge Street found that the delegate had failed to adequately assess the applicant's subjective claims of fear, particularly in light of the objective evidence concerning the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan. The Court held that the delegate's reasoning was flawed because it did not sufficiently engage with the specific details of the applicant's experiences and fears. The principles of procedural fairness require that a decision-maker consider all relevant material and provide reasons that are adequate and intelligible. The Court concluded that the delegate's decision did not meet this standard.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.