SZVCZ v Minister for Immigration

This decision concerned an application for judicial review brought by SZVCZ against the Minister for Immigration. The dispute centred on whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) had correctly applied section 424A(3)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) when it failed to provide the applicant with certain information. The matter was heard by Judge Manousaridis in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was the proper construction of section 424A(3)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether it imposed two separate criteria that must be met for the Tribunal to be relieved of its obligation to provide information to an applicant. This involved determining whether information referring to a class of persons, of which the applicant is a member, is considered "specifically about an applicant or another person" for the purposes of the section.

Judge Manousaridis applied established Full Federal Court authority, including *VJAF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs* and *Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZHXF*. These decisions held that section 424A(3)(a) does not contain two distinct criteria. Instead, the reference to a class of persons is intended to underscore the specificity required, precluding an argument that a reference to a class is a reference to all individuals within it. The Court found that the "Asserted Information" – that the current Prime Minister attended Christian schools and that two of Pakistan's five provincial governors existed – was not specifically about those individuals. Rather, it was about the class of "Pakistan's most prominent leaders," of which they were examples. The Court reasoned that the purpose of mentioning these individuals was to illustrate the class, and the precise identity of the governors was irrelevant, indicating the information was about the class itself, not specifically about the individuals.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal had erred in its application of section 424A(3)(a). The application for judicial review was therefore granted.