SZFHV v MIMA & Anor

The applicants, SZFHV and another, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (MIMA) and another respondent. The dispute concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decisions to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister's decisions were vitiated by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicants contended that the Minister failed to exercise the power conferred by s 48B of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in accordance with the law, thereby engaging the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under s 75(v) of the *Constitution*. This involved an examination of the scope of the Minister's obligations under s 48B and the circumstances in which a failure to consider relevant matters or a consideration of irrelevant matters could constitute jurisdictional error.

Gummow and Heydon JJ considered the nature of the power granted by s 48B, which requires the Minister to consider whether to invite a non-citizen to apply for a protection visa. Their Honours affirmed that a failure to consider a relevant consideration or the consideration of an irrelevant consideration, where such failure or consideration is so profound as to demonstrate that the Minister has not applied their mind to the question required by the statute, can amount to jurisdictional error. The Court analysed the evidence before the Minister and the reasons provided for the refusal to determine whether the Minister had properly exercised the discretion vested in them.

The High Court found that the Minister's decision-making process did not involve jurisdictional error. Consequently, the applications for judicial review were dismissed.