SZUTR v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZUTR, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (Tribunal) to refuse her protection visa. The applicant alleged that the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

The core legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by: (1) misunderstanding and misconstruing the facts, including failing to account for relevant parts of the applicant's claim and unreasonably discrediting her evidence due to minor inconsistencies; (2) failing to take into account relevant considerations, specifically by raising irrelevant issues concerning the applicant's marriage; (3) failing to accurately identify the particular social group from which the applicant feared persecution; (4) making a decision based on assumption and probability rather than applying the correct test for persecution; and (5) failing to apply the correct test for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

Judge Cameron found that the Tribunal had made jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had unreasonably discredited the applicant's evidence regarding her movements due to minor inconsistencies, failing to account for her mental distress. Furthermore, the Tribunal had raised irrelevant issues concerning the applicant's marriage and had failed to accurately identify the particular social group from which the applicant feared persecution, namely extremist fanatics within the Sikh community who opposed inter-community marriages. The court also determined that the Tribunal had failed to apply the correct test for complementary protection, overlooking the real risk of harm or mistreatment based on convention grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was set aside.