Sabuj v Minister for Immigration

Sabuj (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, which was refused by the respondent. The applicant then sought review of this refusal in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's decision to refuse the Protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the delegate of the Minister had failed to consider relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing the applicant's claims for protection. This involved an examination of the delegate's assessment of the applicant's fear of persecution and the objective country information relied upon.

Judge Raphael found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider the applicant's subjective claims of fear, particularly in relation to the specific circumstances he alleged he would face upon return to his country of origin. The court held that the delegate had placed undue reliance on general country information without sufficiently engaging with the individualised nature of the applicant's claims. This failure to properly assess the subjective fear constituted a jurisdictional error.

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