SZJCJ v MIAC & Anor

The applicants, SZJCJ and another, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (MIAC) and the second respondent. The dispute concerned the lawfulness of decisions to refuse to grant visas to the applicants.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister's delegate had failed to consider relevant considerations and had taken into account irrelevant considerations when making the decisions to refuse the visa applications. This involved an examination of the scope of the duty to consider relevant material under administrative law principles, particularly in the context of migration decisions.

Gummow and Kiefel JJ held that the delegate had failed to properly consider the applicants' submissions regarding their claims for protection. The Court found that the delegate had adopted an overly restrictive approach to the evidence presented, effectively ignoring significant aspects of the applicants' case. The reasoning emphasised that administrative decision-makers must genuinely engage with all relevant material put before them, and that a failure to do so constitutes an error of law. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning the proper exercise of statutory power, particularly the requirement to consider relevant considerations and disregard irrelevant ones.

The High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the decisions of the Minister's delegate, and remitted the applications for reconsideration according to law.