SZTGQ v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZTGQ, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) to refuse her application for a protection visa. The core of the dispute concerned allegations that the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal failed to apply the correct legal test, specifically the "real chance" test, when assessing the applicant's claims for protection. This included whether the Tribunal failed to make findings of fact by reference to this test and whether it erroneously applied the Convention test to complementary protection claims.

Justice Cameron found that the Tribunal had indeed committed jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had incorrectly applied the "real chance" test, which requires a finding of a real chance of persecution, to the applicant's claims. Instead, the Tribunal had applied a more stringent test, effectively requiring the applicant to demonstrate a *likelihood* of persecution. This misapplication of the legal standard meant that the Tribunal had not properly considered the evidence in accordance with the correct legal framework.

Consequently, the Court quashed the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.