SZGOD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1491

SZGOD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1491

Leave to raise the proposed ground for the first time on appeal was refused because the ground had no substance and there was no utility in granting leave. The Tribunal had rejected the appellant's claims on credibility grounds, did not indicate doubt about that rejection, and did not entertain the possibility that the claims were plausible; therefore the "what if I am wrong" test was not called for. No appellable error was shown in the Federal Magistrate's decision, so the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa / Appeal Dismissed; Leave to Rely on a New Ground of Appeal Refused
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Status' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Findings' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Status' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Findings' 'leave to Raise New Ground 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 of Australia Concerning Refusal of a Protection (class Xa) Visa / Appeal Dismissed; Leave to Rely on a New Ground of Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to raise a ground of appeal not argued before the Federal Magistrates Court.' 'Whether the Tribunal was required to apply the "what if I am wrong" or benefit of the doubt approach because the appellant\'s claims were plausible.' 'Whether the Federal Magistrate made any appellable error in dismissing the application for review.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to raise the proposed ground for the first time on appeal was refused because the ground had no substance and there was no utility in granting leave. The Tribunal had rejected the appellant's claims on credibility grounds, did not indicate doubt about that rejection, and did not entertain the possibility that the claims were plausible; therefore the "what if I am wrong" test was not called for. No appellable error was shown in the Federal Magistrate's decision, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent of and incidental to the appeal, fixed in the sum of $1,600.00.']