SZVJI v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an application for judicial review under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by a Colombian citizen against the Minister for Immigration. The applicant sought relief in relation to a decision made by an officer of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection that he was not a person to whom Australia owed any non-refoulement obligations. This decision arose from an International Treaties Obligations Assessment (ITOA) process. The Minister accepted that the decision was reviewable by the Court, as it was made prior to the commencement of s 197C of the Act. The applicant had previously applied for a Protection visa in 2008, which was refused by a delegate and affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. An earlier application for judicial review of that decision was dismissed by this Court.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to complementary protection, given his claims of fear of returning to Colombia. These claims stemmed from his father's involvement in drug trafficking, his father's subsequent arrest and extradition to the USA, and the applicant's assertion that he was targeted due to his familial connection and knowledge of individuals involved in drug dealing. The applicant contended that he was at risk of death if returned to Colombia, particularly as he had lived with his father and attended school with the children of drug traffickers, thereby possessing knowledge that posed a threat to those involved in criminal activities.

The Court was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the ITOA process and the previous findings of this Court in relation to his earlier judicial review application. The applicant's arguments focused on his perceived vulnerability and the potential threats he faced in Colombia, which he believed warranted complementary protection under legislation introduced in 2012. The Court's reasoning would necessarily involve an assessment of whether the applicant's stated fears were well-founded and whether they engaged Australia's non-refoulement obligations, taking into account the history of the applicant's visa applications and judicial challenges.