SZTIL v Minister for Immigration and Anor

The applicant, SZTIL, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant a protection visa. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had affirmed the Minister's decision. The matter came before Judge Driver of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the AAT had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims for protection, specifically concerning the risk of persecution or harm should the applicant be returned to their country of origin. This involved a consideration of whether the AAT had properly applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), including the assessment of the applicant's credibility and the objective country information.

Judge Driver found that the AAT had failed to adequately consider certain aspects of the applicant's evidence and had not properly engaged with the objective country information in relation to the specific risks identified by the applicant. The Court reiterated the principles that an administrative decision-maker must consider all relevant evidence and that findings of fact must be supported by evidence. The AAT's failure to properly weigh the evidence and country information led to an error of law.

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