SZTTA v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZTTA, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant alleged that the Minister's delegate had failed to consider relevant evidence and had made an adverse credibility finding that was not open to the delegate. 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 to refuse the protection visa was affected by jurisdictional error. This involved determining whether the delegate had failed to consider all relevant evidence, particularly concerning the applicant's claims of persecution, and whether the adverse credibility finding was reasonably open on the evidence presented.

The Court found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider crucial documentary evidence that corroborated the applicant's claims. The delegate's adverse credibility finding was based on an incomplete and selective reading of the evidence, rendering it unreasonable and not open on the material before the delegate. Consequently, the delegate's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

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