Sandhu v Minister for Immigration

In *Sandhu v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant, Mr Sandhu, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his application for a protection visa. The Minister's decision was based on the applicant's alleged failure to satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The matter came before Lloyd-Jones J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister'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 Mr Sandhu's claims for protection, thereby vitiating the decision-making process.

Lloyd-Jones J found that the delegate had failed to properly consider the applicant's evidence regarding his fear of persecution. The Court reasoned that the delegate's assessment had been unduly narrow and had not adequately engaged with the specific details of the harm Mr Sandhu alleged he would face if returned to his country of origin. The legal principle applied was that a decision-maker must genuinely consider all relevant evidence and submissions put before them. A failure to do so constitutes a jurisdictional error.

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