SZOUL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 945

SZOUL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 945

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed s 91R ground was new and leave to raise it should not be granted as it lacked merit; the Tribunal had rejected the appellants' persecution claims as untruthful and fabricated, leaving no credible claim requiring assessment under s 91R. The remaining grounds also lacked merit because alleged factual errors involved impermissible merits review, no legal errors were particularised or apparent, and the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were matters for the Tribunal and not reviewable by the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Federal Court Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Findings' 'leave to Raise New Grounds on Appeal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Findings' 'leave to Raise New Grounds on Appeal']

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

Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Protection Visas / Federal Court Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to raise for the first time on appeal a ground alleging failure to deal with persecution and harm under s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the Federal Magistrate failed to consider alleged legal and factual errors in the Tribunal decision.' "Whether the Federal Magistrate erred by not finding that the Tribunal decision was unjust in light of the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed s 91R ground was new and leave to raise it should not be granted as it lacked merit; the Tribunal had rejected the appellants' persecution claims as untruthful and fabricated, leaving no credible claim requiring assessment under s 91R. The remaining grounds also lacked merit because alleged factual errors involved impermissible merits review, no legal errors were particularised or apparent, and the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were matters for the Tribunal and not reviewable by the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ["The first and second appellant's notice of appeal filed on 3 May 2011 be dismissed."]