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 the Minister had adequately considered the applicant's claims of persecution. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had failed to take into account relevant considerations and taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing Mr Sandhu's Protection visa application, specifically in relation to his claims of persecution. This involved an examination of whether the delegate's assessment of the evidence presented by Mr Sandhu was reasonable and whether the delegate had properly applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

Judge Harland found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider crucial aspects of Mr Sandhu's evidence concerning his fear of persecution. The delegate's assessment was found to be superficial and did not engage with the substance of the applicant's claims, particularly in relation to the risk of harm he faced upon return to his country of origin. The Court applied the principles of administrative law, requiring that decision-makers must genuinely consider all relevant material and not act arbitrarily or unreasonably. The delegate's failure to properly assess the evidence meant the decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the Court set aside the decision of the Minister to refuse the Protection visa and remitted the application to the Minister for redetermination according to law.