SZSSB v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZSSB, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who had arrived in Australia without a visa, claimed to fear persecution in their country of origin due to their membership of a particular social group. The Minister's delegate had refused the protection visa application, a decision that was subsequently affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant then brought proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims regarding their membership of a particular social group and the real chance of persecution should they be returned to their country of origin. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the Tribunal had properly applied the principles established in *Love v Commonwealth* [2020] HCA 3 and *Thomsen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2021] FCA 1067 in its determination of the applicant's claims.

Judge Nicholls found that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider the evidence presented by the applicant in relation to their claimed membership of a particular social group. The Court held that the Tribunal's reasoning was insufficient and did not demonstrate a proper understanding of the legal test for establishing membership of a particular social group, particularly in light of the High Court's decision in *Love*. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to properly assess the applicant's claims. The Court set aside the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.