SZLKL v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1214

SZLKL v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCA 1214

The appellant did not identify adverse information underpinning his s 424A contention or explain how jurisdictional error, breach of procedure or breach of s 424A was made out. The adverse findings were based on information he provided at the Tribunal hearing, falling within the exception to s 424A(1). The Tribunal decision disclosed no jurisdictional error and the Federal Magistrates Court judgment was free of appealable error, so the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 424 A' 'procedural Fairness']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 424 A' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by failing to invite the appellant to respond to adverse information.' "Whether the Tribunal's decision involved jurisdictional error." 'Whether the Federal Magistrates Court judgment contained appealable error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not identify adverse information underpinning his s 424A contention or explain how jurisdictional error, breach of procedure or breach of s 424A was made out. The adverse findings were based on information he provided at the Tribunal hearing, falling within the exception to s 424A(1). The Tribunal decision disclosed no jurisdictional error and the Federal Magistrates Court judgment was free of appealable error, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $1,700."]