SZEHK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1732

SZEHK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1732

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any error in the Federal Magistrate's decision or any error of law or jurisdictional error in the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision. The Federal Magistrate had carefully considered the Tribunal's decision and was satisfied that there was no jurisdictional error, so the decision was not shown to be attended by sufficient doubt and no substantial injustice would result from refusing leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Orders and Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'competency Objection' 'time Limit for Filing' 'leave to Appeal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'competency Objection' 'time Limit for Filing' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Orders and Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Magistrate's interlocutory orders and judgment." "Whether the Federal Magistrate's decision was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court." 'Whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused.' "Whether the applicant identified any error of law or jurisdictional error in the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision or the Federal Magistrate's decision." "Whether the Federal Magistrate was correct to uphold the respondent's objection to competency under s 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify any error in the Federal Magistrate's decision or any error of law or jurisdictional error in the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision. The Federal Magistrate had carefully considered the Tribunal's decision and was satisfied that there was no jurisdictional error, so the decision was not shown to be attended by sufficient doubt and no substantial injustice would result from refusing leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be refused.' 'The applicant to pay the costs of the application.' 'The applicant is to pay the costs of the application fixed in the amount of $900.00.']