Sandu v Minister for Immigration

Sandu (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant him a protection visa. The applicant, who is from Sri Lanka, claimed to fear persecution upon return to his home country due to his alleged involvement with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, finding that the applicant's claims were not credible and that he did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant subsequently applied to the Federal Circuit Court for judicial review of this decision.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant argued that the delegate failed to properly consider and assess the evidence relating to his claims of persecution, particularly concerning his alleged past membership of the LTTE and the potential consequences of his return to Sri Lanka. The applicant contended that this failure amounted to an error in the exercise of the delegate's statutory power.

Judge Hartnett found that the delegate's assessment of the applicant's claims was flawed. The Court determined that the delegate had not adequately engaged with the applicant's evidence regarding his alleged involvement with the LTTE and the specific reasons for his fear of persecution. The delegate's reasoning was found to be superficial and did not demonstrate a proper understanding or evaluation of the material presented. Consequently, the Court concluded that the delegate's decision was affected by jurisdictional error, as it was not based on a proper consideration of the relevant evidence and legal criteria.

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