SZTED v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1460

SZTED v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1460

The extension of time was granted because the delay was short, promptly explained, and caused no prejudice, and the proposed ground was sufficiently arguable. The appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal's observation that it could not see or feel a scar, and that no medical evidence of scarring had been provided, was not the reason or part of the reason for affirming the delegate's decision. The Tribunal's operative reason was its finding that it was implausible that the younger brother would have remained at the family home for three weeks, including the week before departure, if the alleged police threat and assault had occurred. Because the scarring observation was not used as a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Federal Court Appeal
Outcome
Extension of time granted; appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $4,800.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 424 A' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'constitutional Writ Relief']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'procedural Fairness' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 424 A' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'constitutional Writ Relief']

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 Extension of Time to Appeal and Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Federal Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.' "Whether the Tribunal's statement that it was unable to see or feel any scar on the younger brother's head was information for the purposes of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)." "Whether the absence of visible scarring was part of the Tribunal's reason for affirming the delegate's decision." 'Whether any failure to give notice under s 424A or use the procedure under s 424AA amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was granted because the delay was short, promptly explained, and caused no prejudice, and the proposed ground was sufficiently arguable. The appeal was dismissed because the Tribunal's observation that it could not see or feel a scar, and that no medical evidence of scarring had been provided, was not the reason or part of the reason for affirming the delegate's decision. The Tribunal's operative reason was its finding that it was implausible that the younger brother would have remained at the family home for three weeks, including the week before departure, if the alleged police threat and assault had occurred. Because the scarring observation was not used as a...

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $4,800.

Orders

  • ["The applicants be granted an extension of time up to 26 November 2015 in which to file a notice of appeal in the form of the document titled 'Amended Draft Notice of Appeal' that was provided to the Court on 20 November 2015." 'The hearing be treated as a hearing of the appeal.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The...