Applicants S557 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 176

Applicants S557 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 176

The applicant failed to establish a denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error by the Tribunal; the Tribunal was entitled to use independent country information, and the applicant was notified of the process but chose not to participate further. There was no merit in the grounds of appeal, and thus leave to appeal and an extension of time should be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
['procedural Fairness' 'protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time']
['immigration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['procedural Fairness' 'protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time']

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 Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness by the Refugee Review Tribunal in relying on independent country information not disclosed to the applicant' "Whether the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in its handling of the applicant's claims" 'Whether an extension of time for leave to appeal should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error by the Tribunal; the Tribunal was entitled to use independent country information, and the applicant was notified of the process but chose not to participate further. There was no merit in the grounds of appeal, and thus leave to appeal and an extension of time should be refused.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant mother pay the respondents' costs in the amount of $950."]