SZVUG v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 934

SZVUG v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 934

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants did not identify any arguable appellable error by the primary judge or jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. The proposed ss 424A and 424AA point had not been raised below, no relevant information was identified to enliven those provisions, and the Tribunal's findings were open on its assessment of the husband's evidence and claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Judicial Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection (class Xa) Visas' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Appeal' 'migration Act Ss 424 a and 424 Aa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Credibility Findings']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['protection (class Xa) Visas' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Appeal' 'migration Act Ss 424 a and 424 Aa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Credibility Findings']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Judicial Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory judgment of the Federal Circuit Court dismissing the judicial review application under r 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicants identified an arguable appellable error by the primary judge or jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to comply with ss 424A or 424AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' "Whether the Tribunal failed to investigate the applicants' protection claims adequately."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants did not identify any arguable appellable error by the primary judge or jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. The proposed ss 424A and 424AA point had not been raised below, no relevant information was identified to enliven those provisions, and the Tribunal's findings were open on its assessment of the husband's evidence and claims.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The name of the second respondent be changed so as to read "Administrative Appeals Tribunal".' 'The application be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the first respondent's costs, as agreed or taxed."]