Administrative law – Judicial review – Visas – Where plaintiff applied for protection (subclass 866) visa – Where evidence plaintiff assigned female gender at birth but identifies as male – Where plaintiff wished to undergo gender-affirming surgery – Where delegate erroneously construed plaintiff's answers in interviews as stating he no longer wished to undertake gender-affirming surgery – Where plaintiff did not assert he feared harm by reason of transgender status – Whether delegate committed jurisdictional error – Whether inability to access gender-affirming surgery in country of origin of itself capable of amounting to "serious harm" or "significant harm" – Whether failure to consider report by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade – Whether delegate's obligation extends to addressing a claim not identified.
Words and phrases – "claims for protection", "complementary protection", "constitutional or other writ", "country information", "cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment", "degrading treatment or punishment", "denial of access to basic services", "failure to consider", "gender-affirming surgery", "gender identity", "illogical, irrational or unreasonable", "materiality", "protection obligations", "protection visa", "real risk", "serious harm", "significant harm", "standards of civil societies", "transgender status", "well-founded fear of persecution".
High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), rr 4.02, 25.09.3.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 5H, 5J, 5LA, 36, 411, 412, 474, 476, 476A, 476B, 486A, 499.