SZTJM v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZTJM, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute concerned the Minister's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The matter came before 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 law in their assessment of the applicant's claims for protection. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the delegate had failed to adequately consider the applicant's subjective fear of persecution and whether the delegate had applied the correct legal test in assessing the objective likelihood of harm.

Judge Nicholls found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error. The delegate's assessment of the applicant's subjective fear was found to be inadequate, as it did not properly engage with the applicant's stated experiences and the reasons for their fear. Furthermore, the Court determined that the delegate had applied an incorrect legal standard when assessing the objective likelihood of harm, by requiring a higher degree of certainty than is permissible under the relevant legislation. The Court applied principles established in cases concerning the assessment of protection claims, emphasizing the need for a thorough and nuanced evaluation of both subjective and objective elements of a protection claim.

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