S222 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 211
There was no arguable case that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error; the applicant's grounds sought a merits, not judicial, review; and Emmett J correctly refused the application for an order nisi because the material showed no error justifying relief.
- Parties
- Applicant: S222 of 2003; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Refugee Review Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 February 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Protection Visa, Jurisdictional Error, Refugees Convention
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
S222 of 2003
Applicant
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
First Respondent
Refugee Review Tribunal
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error in refusing the Protection Visa application
- 2 Whether failure to receive court correspondence constituted a ground for leave to appeal
- 3 Whether refusal of the Protection Visa gave rise to a substantial injustice
Ratio Decidendi
There was no arguable case that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error; the applicant's grounds sought a merits, not judicial, review; and Emmett J correctly refused the application for an order nisi because the material showed no error justifying relief.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Time for filing the application for leave to appeal extended to 24 November 2005
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
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