SZUYF v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZUYF, 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 s 5(1) of 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 primary decision-maker and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had erred in their assessment of the applicant's claims of persecution. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the findings made by the AAT regarding the applicant's subjective fear and the objective likelihood of harm were based on relevant considerations and were not affected by jurisdictional error.

Driver J found that the AAT had failed to adequately consider the applicant's evidence regarding the specific circumstances of his alleged persecution and the potential for him to be targeted by certain groups. The Court held that the AAT's reasoning was flawed in its generalised approach to assessing the risk, rather than engaging with the particularised allegations made by the applicant. The legal principle applied was that a decision-maker must properly assess the subjective fear of the applicant and the objective country information in a manner that is specific to the individual's circumstances, and failure to do so constitutes jurisdictional error.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.