Ministerial Intervention Granted

Our client, a young person from a country in the Middle East, had fled their home country after experiencing serious harm on account of their membership of a particular social group. They arrived in Australia on a visitor visa and subsequently applied for a Subclass 866 protection visa. The Department refused the protection visa application, finding that while the client's claims were broadly credible, the country information suggested that adequate state protection was available in the client's home country. The Administrative Review Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision, and a subsequent application to the Federal Circuit Court was dismissed. By the time the client engaged our office, they had exhausted all merits review and judicial review options. They were on a Bridging Visa E and faced imminent removal from Australia. The client was experiencing severe psychological distress, including diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, and their treating psychiatrist had expressed serious concerns about the consequences of return.

Ministerial Intervention under s.417 of the Migration Act is a discretionary, non-compellable power. The Minister is not obliged to consider any request, and there is no right of appeal if the Minister declines to intervene. Statistics show that only a small percentage of requests result in intervention. The key challenges were: - All formal review avenues had been exhausted, meaning we could not simply re-argue the merits of the protection claim. - We needed to demonstrate that there were unique or exceptional circumstances that justified the Minister's personal intervention. - Updated country information was required to show that conditions had deteriorated since the Tribunal's decision. - The client's psychological state made it difficult to obtain detailed instructions, and careful trauma-informed engagement was essential.

We prepared a comprehensive Ministerial Intervention request that went beyond simply restating the protection claims: 1. We obtained updated country information from multiple independent sources — including the UNHCR, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UK Home Office — demonstrating a significant deterioration in conditions for members of the client's particular social group since the Tribunal's decision. 2. We commissioned a detailed medico-legal report from a specialist forensic physician who documented physical evidence consistent with the client's claims of past harm. 3. We obtained a comprehensive psychiatric report from the client's treating psychiatrist, documenting the severity of their PTSD and the treating team's opinion that return to the home country would result in a serious and potentially life-threatening deterioration in the client's mental health. 4. We prepared submissions that carefully distinguished the client's case from the general cohort of protection visa applicants, identifying the specific unique and exceptional circumstances that warranted Ministerial intervention. 5. We engaged with the Minister's office through appropriate channels to ensure the request received proper consideration.

After careful consideration, the Minister personally intervened under s.417 of the Migration Act and substituted a more favourable decision, resulting in the grant of a Subclass 866 protection visa to our client. The Minister's intervention recognised the unique combination of circumstances in the client's case, including the updated country information demonstrating deteriorated conditions, the compelling medical and psychiatric evidence, and the client's particular vulnerability. Our client is now a permanent resident of Australia and is rebuilding their life in safety. They have engaged with specialist trauma counselling services and are making significant progress in their recovery. They have commenced vocational training and are contributing positively to their local community. This case demonstrates the importance of never giving up, even when all formal avenues of review have been exhausted. Ministerial Intervention, while discretionary, can provide a lifeline for the most vulnerable.

KEY FACTS

Granted

14 months from initial engagement to Ministerial decision