SZQDS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor; Razai v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor; SZQKC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor; SZQGX v Minister for Immigration and...

These three applications for judicial review concerned the lawfulness of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant protection visas to the applicants, who were citizens of Afghanistan and Iran. The applicants had arrived in Australia by boat and sought protection on the basis that they feared persecution in their home countries. The Minister had refused their applications, and this refusal was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicants then sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decisions in the Federal Court, which dismissed their applications. The applicants appealed to the Full Federal Court, which also dismissed their appeals. The applicants then sought special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Refugee Review Tribunal had erred in law by failing to consider, or adequately consider, the applicants' claims for protection under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Convention relating to the Status of Refugees* (1951) and its Protocol. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Tribunal had misinterpreted or misapplied the concept of "well-founded fear" of persecution, and that it had failed to give sufficient weight to evidence of general country conditions and the potential for them to be targeted by non-state actors.

The High Court, comprising French CJ and Kiefel J, granted special leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeals. Their Honours held that the Tribunal had not erred in law. They found that the Tribunal had properly considered the applicants' claims, including the evidence of country conditions and the potential for harm from non-state actors. The Tribunal's assessment of the credibility of the applicants' claims and its ultimate conclusion that they did not have a well-founded fear of persecution were found to be within its powers and not vitiated by any error of law. The principles applied concerned the interpretation of the definition of a refugee under international and domestic law, and the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions.

The applications for special leave to appeal were dismissed.