SZCUQ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1187

SZCUQ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1187

Leave to appeal was refused because there were inconsistencies in the applicant's accounts of events and it was open to the Tribunal to rely on them as reasons for doubting his credibility. The asserted no-evidence basis for the inconsistency findings was not made out, and the application was in substance an attempt to challenge the Tribunal's factual evaluation rather than to establish jurisdictional error. The Federal Magistrate's dismissal under para 44.12(1)(a) was therefore not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'credibility Findings' 'no Evidence Ground' 'show Cause Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'credibility Findings' 'no Evidence Ground' 'show Cause Dismissal' 'leave to 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

Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court's dismissal under para 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001." 'Whether the applicant had an arguable case that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by making adverse credibility findings based on alleged inconsistencies said not to be supported by evidence.' "Whether the applicant's challenge was in substance an impermissible challenge to the Tribunal's findings of fact and evaluation of evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because there were inconsistencies in the applicant's accounts of events and it was open to the Tribunal to rely on them as reasons for doubting his credibility. The asserted no-evidence basis for the inconsistency findings was not made out, and the application was in substance an attempt to challenge the Tribunal's factual evaluation rather than to establish jurisdictional error. The Federal Magistrate's dismissal under para 44.12(1)(a) was therefore not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant leave.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs."]