MZZEH v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Hartnett of the Federal Court of Australia concerning an application by MZZEH against the Minister for Immigration. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Tribunal, which had found that the chance of the applicant being persecuted in Islamabad for a Convention reason was remote. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Tribunal's decision was illogical or irrational, constituting a jurisdictional error.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error by reaching an illogical or irrational conclusion regarding the risk of persecution faced by the applicant in Islamabad. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Tribunal's reliance on certain country information and its inferences drawn from that information were unsupported by probative material or logical grounds, as alleged by the applicant. The Court also considered the stringent test for establishing "Wednesbury" unreasonableness in the context of administrative decision-making.

Judge Hartnett reasoned that a finding of illogicality or irrationality is not made lightly and that it is not the Court's role to revisit the factual enquiry concerning the reasonableness of relocation. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on three matters: reports of Hazaras moving to Islamabad for security, country information indicating few recent attacks targeting Shias or Hazaras in Islamabad, and the absence of targeted attack reports in Islamabad compared to other parts of Pakistan. The Court found that this information was probative, and the weight given to it was a matter for the Tribunal. The inference drawn by the Tribunal was deemed reasonable and supported by the available country information. Applying the principles from *SZOOR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* and *Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li*, the Court held that the Tribunal's reasons were not based on unsupported findings or inferences, and therefore, no jurisdictional error had occurred. The Court emphasised the stringency of the test for unreasonableness, noting that a decision is only vitiated if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable repository of the power could have exercised it.