SZOIG v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, a citizen of India, and his wife sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant them a Protection visa. The applicants had claimed they feared harm in India due to the applicant's Sikh religion, Labuna ethnicity, and political affiliation with the Lok Dal party. The AAT had considered these claims in light of available country information and the applicant's evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicants' claims for protection. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the AAT had properly applied the complementary protection criterion, considered the available country information, and made findings of fact that were not supported by evidence or were otherwise legally erroneous. This included examining whether the AAT had correctly assessed the risk of significant harm based on the applicants' religion, ethnicity, political opinion, and the possibility of internal relocation within India.

Emmett J found that the AAT had correctly applied the principles established in *SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* [2013] FCAFC 71. The AAT's findings that the applicants had not established a real risk of significant harm due to their religion, ethnicity, or political opinion were based on its assessment of country information and the applicant's evidence. The AAT's conclusion that the applicants could safely and reasonably relocate within India was also supported by the material before it. The court noted that the AAT had indicated the hearing could be rescheduled due to the applicant's health, but this was refused.

The application was dismissed.