SZAFC v MIMIA

The applicant, SZAFC, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (MIMIA) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The Federal Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the Minister's decision was affected by an error of law.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister, in considering the applicant's claim for a protection visa, was bound by the findings of fact made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) in a previous, unsuccessful application for review. Specifically, the court had to consider the implications of the decision in *Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Khosa* [2000] HCA 44 for the Minister's obligations when making a protection visa decision under s 48B of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The High Court held that the Minister, when exercising the non-compellable, non-discretionary power under s 48B, was not bound by the findings of fact of the RRT. Their Honours reasoned that the Minister's power under s 48B was a distinct power from the RRT's review function. The Minister was entitled to form their own view of the facts, even if those facts had been considered by the RRT. The court affirmed that the Minister's decision-making process under s 48B did not involve a review of the RRT's decision, but rather a fresh consideration of the applicant's circumstances in light of the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.

The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review.