SZTMH v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 124

SZTMH v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 124

The Tribunal and Circuit Court found no real chance of serious harm or persecution were the appellant to return to China; thus the statutory criterion for protection under s 36(2) and s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was not satisfied, and no jurisdictional error was established. The appeal was dismissed. There was no contravention of s 486E, so no personal costs order against the solicitor could be made.

Parties
Appellant: SZTMH; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration & Border Protection; Second Respondent: Refugee Review Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protection Visas, Persecution, Serious Harm, Apprehended Bias, Procedural Fairness, Personal Costs Order Against Solicitor
Migration Protection Visas Persecution Serious Harm Apprehended Bias Procedural Fairness Personal Costs Order Against Solicitor

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 7 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SZTMH

Appellant

Minister for Immigration & Border Protection

First Respondent

Refugee Review Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether risk of serious harm under s 91R of Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by apprehended bias
  3. 3 Whether the grounds of appeal have reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal and Circuit Court found no real chance of serious harm or persecution were the appellant to return to China; thus the statutory criterion for protection under s 36(2) and s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was not satisfied, and no jurisdictional error was established. The appeal was dismissed. There was no contravention of s 486E, so no personal costs order against the solicitor could be made.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.