SZGPK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 953

SZGPK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 953

Leave to appeal must be refused as the grounds raised do not demonstrate error on the part of the Federal Magistrate in refusing to set aside the dismissal order; no arguable case of jurisdictional error or sufficient doubt exists.

Parties
Appellant: SZGPK; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Second Respondent: Refugee Review Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order
Outcome
notice of appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Appeal, Jurisdictional Error, Protection Visa, Procedural Dismissal
Migration Appeal Jurisdictional Error Protection Visa Procedural Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SZGPK

Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

First Respondent

Refugee Review Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the refusal to set aside an interlocutory dismissal order
  2. 2 Whether there was jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in affirming refusal of a protection visa
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to properly consider documentary evidence, religious persecution, and procedure

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal must be refused as the grounds raised do not demonstrate error on the part of the Federal Magistrate in refusing to set aside the dismissal order; no arguable case of jurisdictional error or sufficient doubt exists.

Court Disposition

notice of appeal dismissed; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • The notice of appeal filed by the appellant on 5 August 2008 is dismissed.
  • The appellant shall pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.