SZRKG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1389

SZRKG v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1389

The Tribunal did not misconstrue the law relating to risk and fear of significant harm under s 36(2A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); the Tribunal addressed and rejected the claimed risks by reference to the relevant statutory criteria. Any potential error by the Tribunal in not considering the wife's application under both ss 36(2)(a) and (aa) was immaterial, as all factual claims were comprehensively rejected. The grounds of appeal lacked merit and specificity, therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'significant Harm' 'complementary Protection' 'family Unit Criterion']
['migration Law'] ['judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'significant Harm' 'complementary Protection' 'family Unit Criterion']

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 / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal misconstrued the relevant law relating to risk and fear of significant harm under s 36(2A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)' 'Whether it is expedient to allow new grounds of appeal not previously advanced' "Whether the Tribunal erred in not assessing the second appellant's application under both ss 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa)" 'Whether the error was material' "Whether the FCCA judge failed to consider legal and factual errors in the Tribunal's decision"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not misconstrue the law relating to risk and fear of significant harm under s 36(2A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); the Tribunal addressed and rejected the claimed risks by reference to the relevant statutory criteria. Any potential error by the Tribunal in not considering the wife's application under both ss 36(2)(a) and (aa) was immaterial, as all factual claims were comprehensively rejected. The grounds of appeal lacked merit and specificity, therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.' 'Leave to rely on the first ground of appeal is refused.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' "The first appellant must pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed."]