SZEKY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1138

SZEKY v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1138

No jurisdictional error appeared on the face of the Tribunal's reasons. The Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were matters for it, and its use of inconsistencies in the appellant's own material did not breach s 424A because the relevant information was provided by the appellant for the purpose of the application or the inconsistency was not itself "information" requiring notification. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court Concerning Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'credibility Findings' 'jurisdictional Error' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 424 A']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'credibility Findings' 'jurisdictional Error' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 424 A']

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 From the Federal Magistrates Court Concerning Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal ignored relevant materials, made erroneous findings, or reached a conclusion affecting the exercise or purported exercise of its power.' 'Whether adverse credibility findings by the Tribunal disclosed jurisdictional error.' "Whether s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) required the Tribunal to give particulars and invite comment on inconsistencies relied on in affirming the delegate's decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

No jurisdictional error appeared on the face of the Tribunal's reasons. The Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were matters for it, and its use of inconsistencies in the appellant's own material did not breach s 424A because the relevant information was provided by the appellant for the purpose of the application or the inconsistency was not itself "information" requiring notification. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs."]