SZOQQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the interpretation of Australia's "protection obligations" under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in relation to refugees. The appellant, SZOQQ, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's delegate, which found that while the appellant had a well-founded fear of political persecution if returned to Indonesia, Australia owed no "protection obligations" due to a conviction for a "particularly serious crime." The central dispute revolved around whether the scope of "protection obligations" under section 36(2)(a) of the Act was limited by the non-refoulement obligation in Article 33(1) of the Refugees Convention, and whether section 91U of the Act confined this scope.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the "protection obligations" in section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) were solely limited to the non-refoulement obligation found in Article 33(1) of the Refugees Convention, and whether section 91U of the Act operated to confine the scope of these "protection obligations." Additionally, the Court considered whether the Minister was bound to assess if the grant of a visa was prevented by section 501 of the Act.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court determined that section 91U of the Act, which defines "particularly serious crime," did not have the effect of limiting the "protection obligations" under section 36(2)(a) of the Act to only those persons who were not excluded by Article 33(2) of the Refugees Convention. The Court reasoned that the language of section 91U did not evince a legislative intention to curtail the scope of protection obligations in the manner argued by the Minister. Consequently, the Court ordered that a writ of certiorari issue to quash the delegate's decision and a writ of mandamus to require the delegate to review the decision according to law. The first respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs.