SZSOV v Minister for Immigration

SZSOV (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who is of Hazara ethnicity, claimed to fear persecution in Afghanistan due to their ethnicity and their perceived association with a political group. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had affirmed the Minister's decision, finding that the applicant's claims were not substantiated to the required standard. The applicant then brought proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims for a protection visa. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the AAT had failed to adequately assess the risk of persecution faced by the applicant, particularly in light of their Hazara ethnicity and their alleged political affiliations, and whether the AAT had applied the correct legal test in determining whether the applicant would be subjected to serious harm.

Judge Nicholls found that the AAT had made a jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had failed to properly consider the evidence relating to the general country information concerning the persecution of Hazaras in Afghanistan and the specific evidence provided by the applicant regarding their individual circumstances and fears. The court held that the AAT had not adequately engaged with the applicant's subjective claims of fear and the objective evidence supporting those fears, leading to an erroneous conclusion that the applicant had not established a real chance of suffering serious harm. The court therefore quashed the AAT's decision.