SZMCI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 98

SZMCI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 98

The applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case. The Tribunal did not address the matter as a relocation case; rather, it found that the risk of serious harm had abated, that any continuing threats were low level verbal threats not accompanied by an intention to cause actual harm, and that the applicant had lived in Vavol for months without actual harm. In light of VBAO, the Tribunal did not err in not being satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations. Without an arguable case, there were no special reasons to grant leave to appeal out of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Migration Matter; Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal / Application Under Order 52 Rule 15 of the Federal Court Rules From a Federal Magistrates Court Judgment Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'special Reasons' 'jurisdictional Error' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'relocation' 'serious Harm']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'special Reasons' 'jurisdictional Error' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'relocation' 'serious Harm']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Matter; Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal / Application Under Order 52 Rule 15 of the Federal Court Rules From a Federal Magistrates Court Judgment Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special reasons existed under Order 52 rule 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules to give leave to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time.' 'Whether the applicant demonstrated an arguable case that the Refugee Review Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider the practicalities and reasonableness of relocation within India.' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in not being satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable case. The Tribunal did not address the matter as a relocation case; rather, it found that the risk of serious harm had abated, that any continuing threats were low level verbal threats not accompanied by an intention to cause actual harm, and that the applicant had lived in Vavol for months without actual harm. In light of VBAO, the Tribunal did not err in not being satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations. Without an arguable case, there were no special reasons to grant leave to appeal out of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application filed 19 November 2008 be dismissed.' "The Applicant pay the Respondent Minister's costs."]