SZEYK v MIAC

The applicant, SZEYK, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Internal Appeals Council (MIAC) to affirm the refusal of his protection visa application. The dispute concerned whether MIAC had erred in law by failing to consider certain evidence that SZEYK contended was crucial to his claim for protection. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether MIAC, in affirming the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa, had failed to consider relevant evidence that was before the delegate and was also before MIAC. This involved an examination of MIAC's obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the principles of administrative law concerning the consideration of evidence by review bodies.

The High Court found that MIAC had indeed failed to consider a significant portion of the evidence that had been before the primary decision-maker and was also before MIAC. Their Honours noted that MIAC's reasons for decision did not engage with this evidence, nor did they explain why it was not considered relevant or persuasive. This failure constituted an error of law, as MIAC was required to consider all relevant evidence before it when undertaking its review. The Court therefore allowed the appeal.