SZSHI v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZSHI, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute concerned the Minister's decision to refuse SZSHI's application for a protection visa. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in law by failing to consider relevant evidence and by making findings that were not open to be made on the evidence before them. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if the delegate had adequately assessed the risk of SZSHI suffering harm if returned to their country of origin, and whether the delegate's adverse credibility findings were justified.

Judge Raphael found that the delegate had indeed failed to consider crucial evidence relating to the applicant's claims of persecution, particularly concerning the alleged actions of a particular group in the applicant's home country. The Court held that the delegate's adverse credibility findings were not open to be made on the evidence and that the delegate had impermissibly substituted their own views for the evidence presented. The legal principle applied was that a decision-maker must genuinely consider all relevant evidence and cannot make findings that are not supported by the evidence.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.