SZUWM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The case of SZUWM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection involved an appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister made on 27 August 2013 to refuse the grant of Protection (Class XA) visas to the appellants, who are citizens of Bangladesh. The husband, wife, and their daughter were seeking protection visas due to the husband's political activities in Bangladesh. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the husband's claims were not sufficiently detailed to satisfy the Tribunal that he was owed a protection obligation under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal exercised its discretion unreasonably in failing to order an adjournment of the hearing and whether it failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the husband's medical certificate, in exercising its discretion. The court found that the Tribunal was not under an obligation to seek clarification of the nature of the claimed illness, and it was appropriate that the inquiry was made with the appellants' migration agent. The court also found that the Tribunal's request for clarification was not evidence of bad faith or a closed mind, but rather an indication that the Tribunal gave active consideration to the request and that its mind remained open to persuasion as to whether a postponement should be granted.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the first and second appellants pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed. The court found that the Tribunal did not exercise its discretionary power unreasonably and that it was reasonable for the Tribunal to seek clarification as to the nature of the husband and wife's illnesses in order to determine whether an adjournment should be granted. The court also found that the allegation that the Tribunal "exercised its discretionary power not in good faith" was raised for the first time in the husband’s written submissions and could not be made out.