SZVUP v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) to affirm the refusal of a protection visa to the applicant, a citizen of Nepal. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 2006 and, after a refusal of a further student visa in March 2012, applied for a protection visa in November 2013, claiming fear of harm in Nepal based on past and continuing political opinion. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused the protection visa, and the RRT subsequently affirmed this decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the RRT had failed to have regard to all the evidence before it, as alleged by the applicant. Specifically, the applicant contended that the RRT had not adequately considered all the evidence because it had not asked her sufficient questions, merely putting factual matters to her. The applicant also argued that the RRT had not had all the evidence it should have had.

Emmett J found that the applicant's assertion that the RRT had not had all the evidence it should have had was unsupported by any evidence. The court noted that the RRT's decision detailed the applicant's claims and the Tribunal's findings, including observations of "multiple anomalies in her evidence" and significant differences between her account in her protection visa application and her evidence at the hearing. The Tribunal had not accepted key aspects of her protection claims, finding she had never been involved with political parties in Nepal, demonstrated a lack of interest in Nepali politics, and had not been kidnapped, threatened, or harmed. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had any profile giving rise to a real chance of harm. The court found no evidence to support the applicant's claim that the RRT had failed to ask her questions or had not considered all the evidence.