SZDXE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 182

SZDXE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 182

The appeals were dismissed because the First Appellant did not identify any jurisdictional error by the Refugee Review Tribunal, his grounds and oral submissions did not cast doubt on the Federal Magistrate's reasons, and the Second and Third Appellants' claims depended on the First Appellant's unsuccessful claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas and Alleged Jurisdictional Error by the Refugee Review Tribunal / Appeal From Dismissal of Applications for Constitutional Writ Relief by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Outcome
Each appeal dismissed with costs against the First Appellant fixed at $3,500.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'convention Reason' 'chinese Indonesian Applicant' 'derivative Protection Visa Claims']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'refugee Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'convention Reason' 'chinese Indonesian Applicant' 'derivative Protection Visa Claims']

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

Appeal Concerning Refusal of Protection Visas and Alleged Jurisdictional Error by the Refugee Review Tribunal / Appeal From Dismissal of Applications for Constitutional Writ Relief by the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal made jurisdictional error in affirming the refusal of Protection Visas.' 'Whether the First Appellant had shown a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason if returned to Indonesia.' "Whether the Second and Third Appellants' derivative claims under section 36(2)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) could succeed if the First Appellant's claim failed." 'Whether the Federal Magistrates Court erred in dismissing the applications for constitutional writ relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because the First Appellant did not identify any jurisdictional error by the Refugee Review Tribunal, his grounds and oral submissions did not cast doubt on the Federal Magistrate's reasons, and the Second and Third Appellants' claims depended on the First Appellant's unsuccessful claim.

Court Disposition

Each appeal dismissed with costs against the First Appellant fixed at $3,500.

Orders

  • ['Each of the appeals be dismissed.' "Appellant SZDXE is to pay the First Respondent's costs fixed in the agreed amount of $3,500."]