Sandhu v Minister for Immigration and Anor

In *Sandhu v Minister for Immigration and Anor*, 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 section 417 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the Minister's delegate had properly considered the applicant's claims for protection.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the delegate's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the delegate had failed to consider relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing Mr Sandhu's claims, thereby vitiating the decision-making process. This involved an examination of the delegate's assessment of the evidence presented by the applicant and the application of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act* and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

Judge Riley found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider crucial aspects of Mr Sandhu's evidence, particularly 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 in a manner required by law. Consequently, the court determined that the delegate's decision contained jurisdictional error. The application for judicial review was therefore granted.