SZTRW v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZTRW, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who claimed to be a citizen of Sri Lanka, alleged persecution based on his imputed political opinion and membership of a particular social group. The Minister's delegate had refused the application, finding that the applicant's claims were not credible and that he had not established a real chance of suffering harm of a kind contemplated by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Manousaridis in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. This involved a consideration of whether the delegate had failed to consider relevant evidence, had taken irrelevant considerations into account, or had otherwise failed to exercise the power conferred by the *Migration Act* according to law. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if the delegate had adequately assessed the applicant's claims regarding his fear of persecution, including the credibility of his account and the plausibility of the asserted grounds for that fear.

Judge Manousaridis found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the applicant's evidence concerning his alleged fear of persecution. The Court determined that the delegate had adopted an overly critical approach to the applicant's evidence, particularly in relation to certain inconsistencies, without adequately exploring the reasons for those inconsistencies or giving sufficient weight to corroborating evidence. The legal principle applied was that a delegate must undertake a comprehensive and balanced assessment of all the evidence presented, giving due consideration to the applicant's subjective fear and the objective circumstances that might give rise to that fear, rather than dismissing claims based on minor discrepancies without proper justification.

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