SZSYI v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an application for judicial review brought by SZSYI and another applicant against the Minister for Immigration. The applicants sought to challenge a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) which had affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse their applications for a protection visa. The core of the applicants' complaint was that the RRT had failed to properly consider their claims for protection under the complementary protection provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically section 36(2)(aa).

The legal issues before the court were whether the RRT had failed to deal with the applicants' claims for complementary protection. The applicants contended that the RRT had made an express undertaking to consider this provision during the hearing, but that this undertaking was not complied with in its written reasons. They further argued that the RRT's duty extended beyond merely responding to expressly articulated claims, and required it to review the delegate's decision based on all available material. The applicants presented two distinct arguments: first, that the RRT mistakenly believed the complementary protection claim had been abandoned; and second, that even if the RRT did consider the claim, it failed to take into account relevant facts and country information pertinent to complementary protection, which were distinct from the considerations for refugee status.

The court reasoned that the RRT's statutory duty under section 414 of the *Migration Act* required it to consider whether an applicant was entitled to a protection visa under both section 36(2)(a) (refugee status) and section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection), irrespective of any specific undertaking. The court noted that the applicants' amended application was not merely claiming the RRT failed to consider section 36(2)(aa) at all, as the RRT's reasons clearly indicated it had considered and rejected the application of that provision. Instead, the applicants' argument focused on the *manner* in which the RRT had dealt with the complementary protection claims. The court considered the applicants' submission that the RRT might have wrongly concluded the claim was abandoned, and also the argument that the RRT, in considering complementary protection, failed to engage with specific factual findings and country information that were relevant to that provision, even if they were not central to the refugee status assessment.

The court found that the applicants' arguments raised arguable points regarding the RRT's consideration of the complementary protection claims. The court indicated it would proceed to consider the substance of these arguments, particularly the alleged failure to consider relevant facts and country information when assessing the complementary protection claims.