SZSOA v Minister for Immigration & Border Proteciton

The applicant, SZSOA, 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 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 Emmett J of the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the RRT had failed to adequately consider all relevant evidence, including the applicant's personal circumstances and the general country information pertaining to the applicant's country of origin. The Court also considered whether the RRT had applied the correct legal test in assessing the reasonableness of the applicant's fear of persecution.

Emmett J found that the RRT had failed to properly assess the applicant's claims. His Honour held that the RRT had not given sufficient weight to the applicant's subjective fear, nor had it adequately considered the objective country information in conjunction with the applicant's personal circumstances. The Court reiterated the principle that a subjective fear, if reasonably held, can be sufficient to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, even if there is no objective evidence of persecution occurring. The RRT's failure to engage with the totality of the evidence led to an error of law.

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