SZTCT v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZTCT, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned the Minister's assessment of the applicant's claims for protection, specifically whether the applicant would face a real chance of suffering harm amounting to persecution if returned to their country of origin. The matter came before Judge Raphael of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in law by failing to properly consider and assess the applicant's claims regarding the risk of harm upon return. This involved determining whether the delegate had applied the correct legal test for assessing the risk of persecution and whether the delegate's findings of fact were reasonably open on the evidence before them. The Court was required to consider the scope of the Minister's obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and relevant international conventions in assessing protection claims.

Judge Raphael found that the delegate had made an error of law by failing to adequately consider the cumulative effect of the various risks the applicant claimed to face. The delegate had treated each risk in isolation, rather than assessing whether the combination of these risks would amount to persecution. The Court reiterated the principle that a delegate must consider the totality of the evidence and the potential for cumulative harm when assessing a protection visa application. The Court concluded that the delegate's assessment was therefore not reasonably open on the evidence.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the Minister for redetermination according to law.