SZQJH v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Lloyd-Jones J in the Federal Court of Australia, concerning an application for judicial review by SZQJH against the Minister for Immigration. The dispute centred on the decision of a Reviewer who had afforded no weight to certain corroborating documents submitted by the applicant. The Reviewer's decision was based on perceived inconsistencies and implausibility in the applicant's own evidence, specifically regarding an alleged incident in 2006.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Reviewer erred in law by failing to properly consider the corroborating documentary evidence. This involved determining the circumstances under which a tribunal may disregard corroborative material, particularly when it finds the applicant's primary evidence to be lacking in credibility. The Court was required to consider the principles established in cases such as *Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002* and *WAIJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs*.

Lloyd-Jones J applied the principles from *Applicant S20/2002* and *WAIJ*, which establish that while a tribunal may reject corroborative evidence if the applicant's credibility is so severely undermined that their evidence is "poisoned beyond redemption," or if the corroborative material itself is found to be worthless on probative grounds, this is not a licence to disregard such material simply because the tribunal finds the applicant's account unlikely. The Court noted that for an applicant's credibility to be so destroyed as to negate corroborative evidence, there must be cogent material supporting findings of dishonesty or untruthfulness. In *WAIJ*, the Full Court held that a tribunal cannot convert doubt about an applicant's claims into a positive finding that events did not occur without sufficient material. Therefore, the tribunal remains bound to consider corroborative material before concluding whether the claimed events are possible. The Court found that the Reviewer's approach, by stating that the corroborating documents did not "outweigh the problems" with the applicant's evidence and giving them "no weight" due to the perceived issues with the applicant's testimony, risked failing to properly consider the corroborative material independently.

The Court found that the Reviewer's reasoning, as expressed in the reasons for decision, suggested a failure to properly engage with the corroborating documents in accordance with the established legal principles. Consequently, the decision was affected by jurisdictional error. The Court made orders setting aside the decision under review and remitting the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for redetermination according to law.