SZTKB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 653

SZTKB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 653

Leave to appeal was refused because the Applicants failed to specify any ground for the application and failed to comply with r 35.12(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth); there was no reason to dispense with that non-compliance. The proposed s 424A ground did not identify the alleged adverse information, had not been advanced before the Federal Circuit Court, and disclosed no sufficient merit. In any event, no error was apparent in the Federal Circuit Court's consideration of the Tribunal's reasons or in its exercise of discretion under r 44.12(1), and the decision was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['refusal of Protection Visas' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'non Compliance With Federal Court Rules' 'section 424 a Adverse Information' 'relocation in Protection Claims']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['refusal of Protection Visas' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'non Compliance With Federal Court Rules' 'section 424 a Adverse Information' 'relocation in Protection 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal was required because the Federal Circuit Court dismissed the application under r 44.12 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth)' 'Whether the application for leave to appeal complied with r 35.12(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)' 'Whether the Court should dispense with non-compliance with the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)' 'Whether the proposed appeal grounds identified any breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or any reviewable error by the Federal Circuit Court' 'Whether the Federal Circuit Court decision was attended by sufficient doubt or whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Applicants failed to specify any ground for the application and failed to comply with r 35.12(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth); there was no reason to dispense with that non-compliance. The proposed s 424A ground did not identify the alleged adverse information, had not been advanced before the Federal Circuit Court, and disclosed no sufficient merit. In any event, no error was apparent in the Federal Circuit Court's consideration of the Tribunal's reasons or in its exercise of discretion under r 44.12(1), and the decision was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant leave.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.' 'The Applicants are to pay the costs of the First Respondent.']