SZTYN v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZTYN, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in 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 of the Minister had erred in finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason prescribed by the *Migration Act*. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims and determining whether the fear, if established, was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

Judge Manousaridis considered the evidence presented by the applicant, including their account of past events and their reasons for fearing return to their country of origin. The court applied the principles established in cases such as *Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh* and *Applicant S20/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs*, which require a holistic assessment of the evidence to determine if there is a real chance of persecution. The court found that the delegate's assessment of the applicant's credibility was flawed and that the delegate had failed to properly consider certain aspects of the evidence.

The court set aside the decision of the Minister and remitted the application for a protection visa to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.