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 dispute centred on whether Mr Sandhu had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason prescribed by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in law by failing to adequately consider and assess the evidence of past persecution and the risk of future persecution Mr Sandhu claimed to face in his country of origin. Specifically, the court had to determine if the delegate's assessment of the evidence was reasonable and whether the delegate had properly applied the relevant legal tests for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution.

Judge Whelan found that the delegate had failed to properly assess the cumulative impact of the evidence presented by Mr Sandhu, particularly concerning the alleged threats and harassment he had experienced. The court held that the delegate's reasoning was flawed because it did not adequately engage with the specific details of the alleged persecution and did not properly consider the possibility that the applicant's fear, even if not objectively likely to be realised, could still be well-founded if it was genuinely held and based on credible information. The principles of administrative law concerning the proper assessment of evidence and the application of statutory criteria were central to the court's reasoning.

The application for judicial review was successful, and the decision of the Minister was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.