SZQOG v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZQOG, sought judicial review of a decision by an independent merits reviewer (IMR) recommending that the applicant not be recognised as a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations under the Refugee Convention. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was the first respondent, and the IMR was the second respondent. The applicant sought a declaration that the IMR's recommendation was not made in accordance with law, an injunction restraining the Minister from relying on the recommendation, and costs. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia at Perth.

The court was required to determine whether the IMR made jurisdictional errors and denied the applicant procedural fairness by failing to consider or address claims for refugee status and persecution based on a well-founded fear of persecution as a member of the Hazara ethnic and religious minority group. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the IMR failed to take into account relevant evidence supporting these claims, including country of origin and documentary evidence. The applicant also contended that the IMR failed to consider specific provisions of section 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) concerning the essential and significant reasons for persecution, the involvement of serious harm, and systematic and discriminatory conduct.

The court's reasoning involved considering numerous objections to affidavits tendered by the applicant. Objections were upheld regarding paragraphs of affidavits that dealt with the interpretation of interviews and country information not before the IMR, as the court found this material irrelevant to the judicial review of the IMR's decision. However, an admission against interest regarding potential contact with the Taliban was deemed admissible. The court applied the principle that an IMR is not obligated to consider all available country information, but rather to determine which information it relies upon. The court found that the applicant's claims regarding persecution as an ethnic and religious minority were not adequately substantiated or were undermined by inconsistencies and implausible denials of knowledge, leading to a finding that the applicant was not credible.

The application was dismissed.