CSZ15 v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Riley, concerning an application by CSZ15 against the Minister for Immigration. The dispute centred on the applicant's claim for protection, which had been refused by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant contended that the Tribunal had erred in its decision, specifically by making a finding that the peace in the Kurram Agency was durable, without sufficient evidence to support that conclusion.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Refugee Review Tribunal had made a finding of fact without any evidence, or without sufficient evidence, to justify that finding. This ground of review, often referred to as the "no evidence" ground, requires establishing that there was no evidence or material before the decision-maker that could reasonably support the findings made. The court was asked to consider whether the material available to the Tribunal permitted a reasonable inference that the peace in the Kurram Agency was durable, a precondition for the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this matter.

Judge Riley reasoned that the "no evidence" ground is made out only when there is a complete absence of evidence or material that could justify the findings of fact. The court applied the principle that the necessary evidence can be direct or found in material permitting a reasonable inference. In this instance, the court found that there was material that permitted the Tribunal to reasonably infer that the peace was durable. This included a UNHCR report indicating it was safe for internally displaced people to return to certain parts of the Kurram Agency, which the Tribunal could infer would not have been concluded if the peace were unlikely to last. Furthermore, the court considered reports from the FATA Research Centre detailing a low number of security incidents and casualties in the Kurram Agency during 2014 and 2015, which demonstrated a significantly improved security situation compared to the period before the applicant's departure. The court found that the applicant's submissions, referencing other reports and previous Tribunal decisions, did not cast doubt on the durability of this improvement.