SHARMA v Minister for Immigration

Sharma (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a visa. The applicant had applied for a Protection visa, which was refused by the delegate of the Minister. The applicant then sought review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which affirmed the refusal. The applicant subsequently filed an application for judicial review in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims for protection. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the AAT had failed to adequately assess the risk of harm to the applicant in their country of origin, and whether the AAT had applied the correct legal test in determining whether the applicant would be a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

Judge Riley found that the AAT had made a jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had failed to properly consider all the evidence before it regarding the applicant's fear of persecution, particularly in relation to certain specific claims made by the applicant. The Court held that the AAT's findings were not supported by the evidence and that the Tribunal had applied an incorrect standard in assessing the likelihood of harm. The Court reiterated the principles that a decision-maker must consider all relevant evidence and apply the correct legal test for protection claims.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.