SZSKC v MIBP

The applicant, SZSKC, sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, MIBP, to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Lloyd-Jones J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in finding that the applicant's claims of persecution were not credible or, alternatively, had not established a real chance of suffering harm amounting to persecution upon return to their country of origin. This involved a detailed assessment of the applicant's account of events and the objective country information relevant to their situation.

Lloyd-Jones J considered the evidence presented by the applicant and the country information provided by the respondent. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh* and *Applicant S20/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs*, which require a decision-maker to assess the real chance of harm, taking into account both subjective fear and objective circumstances. His Honour found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider certain aspects of the applicant's evidence and had not properly assessed the risk of harm in light of the available country information. Consequently, the delegate's decision was found to be affected by jurisdictional error.

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