SZTKR v Minister For Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1613

SZTKR v Minister For Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1613

The proposed appeal ground had insufficient prospects of success because a mere inconsistency between findings of fact and credit made by differently constituted Tribunals does not establish jurisdictional error or legal unreasonableness. The appellants did not establish any incorrect finding in the first Tribunal decision, and the later inconsistent decision could not make the first decision legally unreasonable merely by existing. Leave to rely on the proposed ground was therefore refused and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa Application / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Decision Dismissing Judicial Review of the Tribunal's Decision; Leave Sought to Rely on a New Ground of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to rely on the proposed ground of appeal was refused; the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa Refusal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'credibility Findings' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal' 'inconsistent Tribunal Decisions']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['protection Visa Refusal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'credibility Findings' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal' 'inconsistent Tribunal Decisions']

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 Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa Application / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Decision Dismissing Judicial Review of the Tribunal's Decision; Leave Sought to Rely on a New Ground of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to rely on a ground of appeal not raised before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.' 'Whether inconsistency between findings of credit and fact made by differently constituted Tribunals was sufficient to establish jurisdictional error in the first Tribunal decision.' 'Whether the first Tribunal decision could be characterised as legally unreasonable merely because a later Tribunal decision made inconsistent findings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed appeal ground had insufficient prospects of success because a mere inconsistency between findings of fact and credit made by differently constituted Tribunals does not establish jurisdictional error or legal unreasonableness. The appellants did not establish any incorrect finding in the first Tribunal decision, and the later inconsistent decision could not make the first decision legally unreasonable merely by existing. Leave to rely on the proposed ground was therefore refused and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to rely on the proposed ground of appeal was refused; the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The Appellants pay the First Respondent's costs of the appeal."]