SZDRY v MIMIA & Anor

The applicant, SZDRY, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (MIMIA) and the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The dispute concerned the refusal of SZDRY's application for a protection visa.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the RRT, in assessing SZDRY's claim for a protection visa, was required to consider evidence that was not before the Minister when the Minister made the initial decision to refuse the visa. Specifically, the court had to determine the scope of the RRT's review powers under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

Kirby J, in his reasons, considered the nature of the RRT's review. His Honour held that the RRT conducts a merits review, meaning it stands in the shoes of the original decision-maker and must consider all relevant evidence before it at the time of its own decision, irrespective of whether that evidence was before the Minister. This principle is grounded in the statutory framework of the *Migration Act*, which contemplates a fresh assessment of the applicant's claims by the Tribunal. The court affirmed that the RRT's function is to determine whether the applicant meets the criteria for a protection visa at the time of the RRT's review.

The High Court found that the RRT had erred in law by failing to consider the additional evidence presented by SZDRY. Consequently, the decision of the RRT was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the RRT for redetermination according to law.