SZTEM v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZTEM, 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 whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Nicholls of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason prescribed by the *Migration Act*. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims and the objective reasonableness of any fear of harm.

Judge Nicholls considered the evidence presented by the applicant and the assessment made by the delegate. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh* and *Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs*, which require a consideration of whether there is a real chance of persecution, assessed objectively, and whether that persecution is for a Convention reason. The delegate's decision was found to be affected by an error of law, specifically in failing to properly consider certain aspects of the applicant's evidence and in applying an incorrect standard of proof.

The Court set aside the decision of the Minister and remitted the application for a protection visa to the Minister for redetermination according to law.