SZRSX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 887

SZRSX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 887

Leave and an extension of time were refused because neither proposed ground of appeal had substance. The present Tribunal was not bound by the earlier Tribunal, the earlier Tribunal had in any event found the applicant's claims lacking in credibility, and the credibility findings of the present Tribunal were open on the material because they were based on identified inconsistencies and objective facts. The applicant's explanation that inconsistencies resulted from her psychological state was a matter for the Tribunal, which had considered her nervous condition and found no medical evidence that her ability to answer questions was impaired.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
The application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Findings' 'extension of Time and Leave to Appeal' 'costs']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Findings' 'extension of Time and Leave to Appeal' 'costs']

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 Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was any substance in the proposed grounds of appeal sufficient to warrant an extension of time and leave to appeal.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in relation to the contention that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the previous Tribunal decision of 20 March 2012.' "Whether the primary judge erred in not finding jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant was not a credible, truthful or reliable witness."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave and an extension of time were refused because neither proposed ground of appeal had substance. The present Tribunal was not bound by the earlier Tribunal, the earlier Tribunal had in any event found the applicant's claims lacking in credibility, and the credibility findings of the present Tribunal were open on the material because they were based on identified inconsistencies and objective facts. The applicant's explanation that inconsistencies resulted from her psychological state was a matter for the Tribunal, which had considered her nervous condition and found no medical evidence that her ability to answer questions was impaired.

Court Disposition

The application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs, in the specified sum of $2,690."]