Plaintiff M7/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2021] HCA 14

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GORDON J

PLAINTIFF M7/2021 PLAINTIFF

AND

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS DEFENDANT

Plaintiff M7/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs

[2021] HCA 14

Date of Hearing: 30 March 2021

Date of Judgment: 15 April 2021

M7/2021

ORDER

1. Pursuant to s 486A(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the period within which an application may be made for a remedy to be granted in relation to a decision made by a delegate of the defendant on 12 June 2020 is extended to 29 January 2021.

2. Pursuant to r 4.02 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the time fixed by rr 25.02.1 and 25.02.2(b) be enlarged in respect of this application.

3. A writ of certiorari issue to quash the decision made by a delegate of the defendant on 12 June 2020 to refuse to grant the plaintiff a protection visa.

4. A writ of mandamus issue directed to the defendant requiring the defendant to determine the plaintiff's application for a protection visa according to law.

5. The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the application.

Representation

N P Karapanagiotidis for the plaintiff (instructed by Asylum Seeker Resource Centre)

C L Symons for the defendant (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Plaintiff M7/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs

Immigration – Refugees – Application for protection visa – Where plaintiff claimed protection on basis of feared persecution in Pakistan on account of homosexuality – Where delegate of defendant refused protection visa – Where delegate found evidence, including "open source social media", did not support view plaintiff was known homosexual in Pakistan – Where open source social media was "relevant information" within meaning of s 57(1) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Where s 57(2) required defendant to give particulars of "relevant information" to plaintiff to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, plaintiff understood why it was relevant, and invite plaintiff to comment – Whether defendant failed to comply with s 57(2) by failing to disclose open source social media or provide particulars to enable plaintiff to understand why information was relevant to protection visa application.