SZSSY v Minister for Immigration

SZSSY (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) to refuse her application for a protection visa. The applicant alleged that the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had misapplied the relevant legal test for assessing persecution, failed to ask a necessary question correctly, omitted to consider a relevant factor, or reached a decision that was illogical or irrational. These allegations centred on the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's claims regarding potential persecution if she were to relocate within her country of origin.

Judge Cameron found that the Tribunal had failed to adequately consider the applicant's evidence regarding the risks she would face upon internal relocation. The Tribunal's reasoning was found to be deficient in that it did not properly engage with the specific evidence presented by the applicant concerning the likelihood of harm in the proposed relocation area. This failure to properly consider relevant evidence amounted to jurisdictional error.

The court ordered that the Tribunal's decision be set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.