SZUAD v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZUAD, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned the Minister's assessment of whether SZUAD would be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Driver J of the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's delegate had erred in failing to consider, or adequately consider, the risk of SZUAD being subjected to persecution by non-state actors in his country of origin, specifically in relation to his imputed political opinion. This involved determining whether the delegate's assessment of the evidence regarding the actions and influence of such non-state actors was reasonable and consistent with the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act* and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

Driver J found that the delegate had failed to properly assess the risk of persecution from non-state actors. The delegate's reasoning had focused primarily on the actions of state actors and had not adequately engaged with the evidence presented concerning the capacity and willingness of non-state groups to inflict harm based on imputed political opinion. The Court applied the principles of administrative law, requiring that decision-makers consider all relevant evidence and provide reasons that are logically sound and defensible. The failure to adequately consider the risk posed by non-state actors meant the delegate's decision was affected 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.