SZLAY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 743
The adjournment and leave to amend were refused because the proposed new ground concerning s 113 of the Penal Code of Mongolia was devoid of merit: the RRT had addressed material about that provision and the treatment of homosexuals in Mongolia, the appellant had long been aware of the point and had not previously argued that he faced persecution by legal strictures against homosexuality, the material did not suggest that homosexuals in Mongolia faced prosecution under the Penal Code as a matter of practical reality, and no adequate explanation was given for the delay in seeking counsel. As the appellant then abandoned the appeal and the existing grounds had no prospects of success, the...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 May 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia in an Immigration/refugee Matter / Application for Adjournment and Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal; Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'adjournment' 'leave to Amend Notice of Appeal' 'persecution Based on Homosexuality' 'mongolia']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia in an Immigration/refugee Matter / Application for Adjournment and Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal; Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the appeal should be adjourned so that counsel could be retained to argue a proposed new ground of appeal.' 'Whether leave should be granted to amend the notice of appeal to include a ground concerning s 113 of the Penal Code of Mongolia and persecution of homosexuals.' 'Whether the proposed new ground had sufficient merit, given the material before the Refugee Review Tribunal and the way the case had previously been conducted.']
Ratio Decidendi
The adjournment and leave to amend were refused because the proposed new ground concerning s 113 of the Penal Code of Mongolia was devoid of merit: the RRT had addressed material about that provision and the treatment of homosexuals in Mongolia, the appellant had long been aware of the point and had not previously argued that he faced persecution by legal strictures against homosexuality, the material did not suggest that homosexuals in Mongolia faced prosecution under the Penal Code as a matter of practical reality, and no adequate explanation was given for the delay in seeking counsel. As the appellant then abandoned the appeal and the existing grounds had no prospects of success, the...
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs, to be taxed in default of agreement."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment