SZULV v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZULV, 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 whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) s 5(1). 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 relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing the applicant's claims of persecution. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the delegate had adequately assessed the risk of harm to the applicant from non-state actors in the applicant's country of origin, and whether the delegate had properly applied the principles of assessing credibility and the objective likelihood of harm.

The Court found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the evidence relating to the risk of harm from non-state actors. The delegate's assessment had focused too narrowly on the actions of state actors and had not adequately engaged with the applicant's evidence regarding the threats and violence he had faced from individuals associated with a particular organisation. The Court reiterated the principle that a failure to consider a real chance of persecution, even if not the most likely outcome, constitutes a jurisdictional error. The Court also noted that the delegate's assessment of credibility was flawed, as it did not properly account for the applicant's subjective fear and the objective circumstances presented.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.