SZTJT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 870

SZTJT v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 870

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds all essentially took issue with factual findings and did not raise any arguable case of jurisdictional error; allegations of bias and procedural unfairness were not substantiated.

Parties
First Appellant: SZTJT; Second Appellant: SZTJU; Third Appellant: SZTJV; Fourth Appellant: SZTJW; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Refugee Review Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Orders Dismissing Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Refugee Status, Complementary Protection, Jurisdictional Error, Bias
Administrative Law Migration Law Judicial Review Refugee Status Complementary Protection Jurisdictional Error Bias

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SZTJT

First Appellant

SZTJU

Second Appellant

SZTJV

Third Appellant

SZTJW

Fourth Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Refugee Review Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Orders Dismissing Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Circuit Court decision dismissing the application for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether there was jurisdictional error by the Tribunal
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to verify claims and evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the grounds all essentially took issue with factual findings and did not raise any arguable case of jurisdictional error; allegations of bias and procedural unfairness were not substantiated.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal be refused
  • The 1st, 2nd and 3rd applicants pay the costs of the appeal