SZTHQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the case of SZTHQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the appellants, a husband and wife, appealed against the Federal Circuit Court's decision to dismiss their application for judicial review of a decision by the Tribunal to refuse their application for a protection visa. The central issue before the Court was whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in dismissing the application for review.

The legal issues the Court had to decide included whether the Tribunal was biased against the appellants, and if the Tribunal had taken all of the appellants’ claims into account pursuant to s 91R of the Act. The Court found that the ground of review alleging bias was not raised in the application to the Federal Circuit Court and could not be advanced without leave, which would not have been granted as no evidence or submissions were provided in support of this ground. The Court also noted that the ground of review alleging that the Tribunal failed to consider all claims was not developed in submissions, and section 91R did not appear to have any central relevance in this case. The Tribunal had rejected the appellants' application because it was not satisfied as to the genuineness of the appellants' asserted fear of persecution, that the fear of persecution was "well founded", or that the fear of persecution was for the reasons stated.

The Court concluded that because the appellants did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal was unable to explore their claims in more detail and could not be satisfied that they were persons to whom Australia owed protection obligations. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the appellants were ordered to pay the First Respondent’s costs.