SZKCQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 578

SZKCQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 578

Leave to raise new grounds of appeal was refused due to lack of merit and no adequate explanation. Section 424AA(b)(iv) did not apply to the appellant's application and there was no evidence of a request for additional time to respond to information before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's findings regarding the applicant's claims precluded the issue of relocation and the alleged failure to consider UNHRC provisions was not relevant or binding. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: SZKCQ; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Second Respondent: Refugee Review Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protection Visa, Procedural Fairness, New Arguments on Appeal, Relocation Principle, Failure to Comply With Statutory Procedures
Migration Law Protection Visa Procedural Fairness New Arguments on Appeal Relocation Principle Failure to Comply With Statutory Procedures

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SZKCQ

Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

First Respondent

Refugee Review Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to argue new grounds not raised below
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to comply with section 424AA(b)(iv) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant UNHRC provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to raise new grounds of appeal was refused due to lack of merit and no adequate explanation. Section 424AA(b)(iv) did not apply to the appellant's application and there was no evidence of a request for additional time to respond to information before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's findings regarding the applicant's claims precluded the issue of relocation and the alleged failure to consider UNHRC provisions was not relevant or binding. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Appeal is dismissed.
  • The Appellant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent.