SZRHL v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Nicholls of the Federal Court of Australia concerning an application for leave to amend an application for judicial review. The applicant sought to introduce a new ground of review, arguing that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error in its consideration of a psychologist's report. This proposed amendment was raised late in the proceedings, and the applicant sought to rely on a previous judgment, *SZRHL*, as support for their argument.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether to grant leave to amend the application to include the new ground, particularly given the delay and the applicant's reliance on the *SZRHL* decision. The Court was required to consider the merits of the proposed ground and whether it was irrational for the Tribunal to have reached its conclusion without first weighing all the evidence, including the psychologist's report, before determining the applicant's credibility.

Judge Nicholls reasoned that while a preferable approach might involve weighing all evidence before assessing credibility, it was not irrational for a decision-maker to focus first on the case presented by the applicant and, if that case is found to be untruthful, to then disregard corroborative evidence. This principle, drawn from *Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Applicant S20/2002*, supported the view that the Tribunal's approach was not necessarily irrational. Furthermore, the Court noted the unexplained delay in raising the new ground. Despite these concerns, the Court granted the parties an opportunity to make further submissions on the *SZRHL* argument due to the potential for the Tribunal to have repeated a jurisdictional error from a previous decision involving the same applicants.