SZALD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1147
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants' grounds amounted to an invitation to revisit the Tribunal's factual findings, and no error by the Federal Magistrate or judicially reviewable error in the Tribunal's decision was apparent.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 01 September 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Migration Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'political Opinion' 'findings of Fact']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the Federal Magistrate erred in dismissing the appellants' application for judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal decision." "Whether the Tribunal's rejection of the appellants' claims to have been members of, and active in, the Maoist Party disclosed judicially reviewable error."]
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants' grounds amounted to an invitation to revisit the Tribunal's factual findings, and no error by the Federal Magistrate or judicially reviewable error in the Tribunal's decision was apparent.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellants pay the respondent's costs."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment