SZSOW v Minister for Immigration

The applicants, a mother and her child, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) concerning their claims for protection. The applicant mother had previously held a student visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the RRT had adequately considered the applicants' claims and whether it had overstepped its role by acting as an arbiter of religious doctrine, thereby committing jurisdictional error.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the RRT had failed to consider the substance of the applicants' claims for protection. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the RRT, in its assessment of the applicants' religious beliefs and practices, had impermissibly placed itself in the position of an arbiter of religious doctrine, which would constitute a jurisdictional error.

In its reasoning, the court found that the RRT had indeed fallen into jurisdictional error. The Tribunal's assessment of the applicants' claims, particularly concerning their religious beliefs, demonstrated a failure to engage with the evidence in a proper manner. By seeking to determine the "truth" of the applicants' religious adherence rather than assessing the genuineness of their claims in light of the available evidence and the relevant legal criteria, the RRT had acted outside its statutory authority. The court emphasised that the RRT's role was to assess the credibility and substance of the claims presented, not to adjudicate on the validity of religious beliefs themselves.

The court ordered that the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal be set aside.