SZROL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This is an appeal from orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made on 9 September 2020, dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate not to grant the appellant a protection visa. The appellant, a Nepalese national who arrived in Australia on 8 May 2010, lodged an application for a protection visa on 22 July 2011. He claimed protection on the basis of his support for the Nepalese Monarchy and his membership of a particular social group. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship refused the appellant’s application on 10 January 2012, a decision that was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 14 February 2014. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review of this decision on 28 December 2017. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision on 5 December 2017, a decision the Federal Circuit Court dismissed on 9 September 2020.

The appellant argued that the primary judge did not adequately consider the appeal grounds, particularly regarding the inconsistencies in his evidence. The appellant contended that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's reliance on the delegate's decision record, which included inconsistencies in his statements, constituted a jurisdictional error. The appellant submitted that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should have conducted its own independent review, rather than relying on the delegate’s findings. However, the court found that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was entitled to consider the delegate's decision record, as it was provided to the tribunal for the purposes of the Migration Act. The appellant did not present evidence to challenge the accuracy of the delegate's record.

The court held that the primary judge did not err in their consideration of the appeal grounds. The inconsistencies in the appellant's evidence were significant, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was entitled to rely on the delegate's decision record. The court found no jurisdictional error in the tribunal's decision, and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs of and in relation to the appeal, as agreed or assessed.