SZVXV v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Manousaridis of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia concerning an application by SZVXV against the Minister for Immigration. The dispute centred on grounds raised by the applicant, which, while pressed primarily to preserve appeal rights, were the subject of extensive submissions. These grounds related to the alleged contravention of section 116 of the Australian Constitution and customary international law.

The court was required to determine whether the actions of the Refugee Tribunal in assessing the applicant's claim for a protection visa, specifically concerning their claimed conversion to Christianity and potential persecution in Iran, constituted a breach of section 116 of the Constitution. This section prohibits the Commonwealth from making laws for imposing religious observance or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The court also considered whether the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's claims violated customary international law.

Judge Manousaridis applied the principles established in High Court decisions, particularly *Kruger v Commonwealth* and *Plaintiff 178A/2016 v Minister for Immigration*. The court reasoned that section 116 of the Constitution focuses on the purpose or object of a law, not merely its effect. The Tribunal's role was to discharge its statutory duty to review the delegate's decision by fact-finding, which included testing the genuineness of the applicant's claimed religious beliefs as a basis for refugee status. This fact-finding function was held not to amount to imposing a religious test or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated how the Tribunal's testing of their factual assertion of fear of persecution on a Convention ground violated any customary international law norm.

The court found no merit in the applicant's grounds. The Tribunal was entitled to test the applicant's claim to be a Christian and their intention to practise it, as this was relevant to the assessment of their protection visa claim. The court concluded that the Tribunal's actions were a proper discharge of its statutory duty and did not contravene section 116 of the Constitution or customary international law.