SZTOM v Minister For Immigration and Anor (No.2)

The applicant, SZTOM, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant a protection visa. The matter came before Judge Nicholls of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The core of the dispute concerned the applicant's claim for protection based on a fear of persecution in their country of origin.

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, specifically in relation to the credibility of the applicant's account and the assessment of the objective country information. The Court was required to determine if the delegate had failed to adequately consider relevant evidence or had applied an incorrect legal standard in assessing the risk of harm.

Judge Nicholls found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the applicant's evidence regarding their fear of persecution. The Court reasoned that the delegate had adopted an overly rigid approach to assessing credibility, requiring a level of detail that was not necessarily expected from a person in the applicant's circumstances. The legal principle applied was that a decision-maker must genuinely consider all relevant evidence presented by an applicant, and that a failure to do so constitutes an error of law.

The Court quashed the original decision and remitted the application for a protection visa to the Minister for redetermination according to law.