SZUUB v Minister for Immigration

SZUUB (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant, who is from Iran, claimed to fear persecution on the basis of his imputed political opinion and imputed religious belief. The delegate of the Minister had found that the applicant's claims were not credible and therefore did not engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations under 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's adverse credibility findings were affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the delegate had failed to consider relevant evidence or had taken irrelevant considerations into account when assessing the applicant's claims of imputed political opinion and imputed religious belief. The applicant argued that the delegate's assessment of his evidence was unreasonable and that the delegate had failed to properly consider the objective country information relating to Iran.

Judge Manousaridis found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error. The Court reasoned that the delegate's assessment of the applicant's evidence regarding his alleged political activities was flawed, as it did not adequately engage with the substance of the evidence provided. Furthermore, the Court held that the delegate had failed to properly consider the objective country information concerning the treatment of individuals with imputed political opinions and imputed religious beliefs in Iran, particularly in relation to the specific circumstances described by the applicant. The Court concluded that the delegate's adverse credibility findings were not open on the evidence before them.

The Court set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the application for a protection visa to the Minister for redetermination according to law.