SZFLW v Minister for Immigration and BORDER Protection

The applicant, SZFLW, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was the respondent. The core of the dispute concerned the RRT's application of provisions within the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) relating to the provision of bogus documents and evidence of identity when assessing an application for a protection visa.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the RRT had failed to properly consider and apply section 91W(2)(b) of the *Migration Act*, as alleged by the applicant. The applicant also contended that the RRT's decision was unreasonable and made without supporting evidence, particularly in light of his admission of using a false passport and providing his real name.

Justice Emmett accepted the submission of the respondent that the applicant's ground of complaint regarding section 91W(2)(b) was misconceived. While the RRT did not explicitly refer to section 91W(2)(b), it had considered and applied section 91WA of the Act. The Court noted that the applicant had made no submissions in support of his complaint concerning section 91W(2)(b) and had been invited to respond to the Court's interpretation of section 91W. The applicant's response focused on the unreasonableness of the RRT's decision and the lack of supporting evidence, rather than a specific failure to apply section 91W(2)(b). The RRT's findings, as set out in paragraph 32 of its decision, indicated that it had not accepted the applicant's explanation for providing a bogus passport and a false identity for approximately 11 years, and therefore found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of section 91WA.

The Court found that the applicant had not established an arguable case for the relief claimed. Consequently, the application was dismissed.