SZVBN v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZVBN, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to reject their protection visa application as invalid. The core of the dispute concerned whether section 48A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) barred SZVBN's second application, given that the principal applicant had previously been included as a member of a family group in an earlier protection visa application, and whether this bar applied even if the principal applicant was unaware of the earlier application. The matter came before Judge Driver in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine the legal effect of section 48A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in the context of a subsequent protection visa application by a principal applicant who had previously been a member of a family unit in an earlier, unsuccessful application. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant's lack of knowledge regarding the prior application was relevant to the operation of the section, and whether an unaccompanied minor could make a valid protection visa application without the intervention of a guardian.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles established in *Jaffari v Minister for Immigration*, which clarified that the Minister's role as a statutory guardian under the *Guardianship Act* does not extend to advancing visa applications or initiating reviews of visa decisions on behalf of children. The court noted that the *Guardianship Act* was not intended to create a conflict of interest by imposing a dual role on the Minister. The court found that there is nothing within the *Migration Act* to prevent an unaccompanied minor from making a valid visa application, including a protection visa, without a guardian. The capacity to make such an application is a matter of factual comprehension, and a child assisted by a migration agent could make a valid application, provided they are of sufficient age and understanding. The court also referenced *Re Woolley; Ex parte Applicants M276/2003*, where it was deemed unnecessary to consider the position of unaccompanied minors.