Uddin v MIMIA & Anor

Uddin was the applicant in proceedings before the High Court of Australia, seeking leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Federal Court. The respondents were the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (MIMIA) and the Commonwealth of Australia. The dispute concerned the applicant's claim for protection as a refugee.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Federal Court had erred in law by failing to apply the correct test for assessing the lawfulness of the Minister's decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa. Specifically, the applicant contended that the Federal Court had misconstrued the nature of the "real chance" test, which is central to determining whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

Gleeson CJ and Heydon J, in their joint reasons, explained that the "real chance" test requires an assessment of the objective likelihood of harm occurring, rather than a mere possibility. They clarified that the test does not demand certainty but rather a degree of probability that is more than fanciful or speculative. The court emphasised that the assessment must be based on the evidence before the decision-maker and that the Federal Court had correctly applied this standard in its review of the Minister's decision.

Leave to appeal was refused.