SZUCA v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 170

SZUCA v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 170

The applicant did not identify an arguable case of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or appellable error by the primary judge. The first ground was unexplained and unparticularised, the second ground did not disclose arguable bias, discrimination or other appealable error, and the third ground related only to delay, which the Minister did not press. As the proposed appeal lacked merit, the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Migration; Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Judgment Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Federal Court Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal and for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'credibility Findings' 'refugee Protection' 'complementary Protection']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'credibility Findings' 'refugee Protection' 'complementary Protection']

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 From a Federal Circuit Court Judgment Concerning Refusal of a Protection Visa / Federal Court Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal and for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to seek leave to appeal.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory judgment of the Federal Circuit Court.' 'Whether the applicant identified an arguable case of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or appellable error by the primary judge.' "Whether the applicant's allegations of discrimination or bias based on age and educational background disclosed an arguable ground of appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not identify an arguable case of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or appellable error by the primary judge. The first ground was unexplained and unparticularised, the second ground did not disclose arguable bias, discrimination or other appealable error, and the third ground related only to delay, which the Minister did not press. As the proposed appeal lacked merit, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed."]