SZSMZ v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

The applicant, SZSMZ, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Emmett J of the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in failing to properly consider and assess the applicant's claims regarding past persecution and the risk of future persecution. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the delegate had adequately assessed the credibility of the applicant's evidence and whether the delegate's conclusion that the applicant would not suffer persecution was reasonably open on the evidence.

Emmett J found that the delegate had failed to properly assess the applicant's claims. His Honour noted that the delegate had not adequately considered the cumulative effect of the applicant's experiences, nor had the delegate properly assessed the credibility of the applicant's evidence in relation to the alleged persecution. 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 thorough and fair assessment of an applicant's claims for protection. The delegate's decision was found to be affected by jurisdictional error.

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