SZUTP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 665

SZUTP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 665

The appellants failed to establish any error in the primary Judge's decision. The Tribunal considered the psychologist's report, country information, relocation, financial circumstances and the appellants' claims, and its adverse credibility and factual findings were reasonably open. The proposed natural justice and relocation grounds had no prospects of success, and no jurisdictional error or appealable error was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Judicial Review of Refusal to Grant Protection (class Xa) Visas / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection (class Xa) Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Findings' 'natural Justice' 'country Information' 'relocation' 'significant Harm' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection (class Xa) Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Findings' 'natural Justice' 'country Information' 'relocation' 'significant Harm' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal Concerning Judicial Review of Refusal to Grant Protection (class Xa) Visas / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary Judge erred in dismissing the application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision." "Whether the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the psychologist's report concerning the father." 'Whether adverse credibility findings against the appellants were open to the Tribunal.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in its treatment of country information and the issue of relocation in Lebanon.' 'Whether the appellants were denied an opportunity to respond to country information relied on by the Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to establish any error in the primary Judge's decision. The Tribunal considered the psychologist's report, country information, relocation, financial circumstances and the appellants' claims, and its adverse credibility and factual findings were reasonably open. The proposed natural justice and relocation grounds had no prospects of success, and no jurisdictional error or appealable error was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellants pay the Respondents' costs of the appeal."]