SZUHJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 331

SZUHJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 331

There was no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in making adverse credibility findings on the basis of inconsistencies and circumstances of the applicant's new claim. The Tribunal was entitled to make findings against the applicant without rebutting evidence, and its findings were open on the evidence and not unreasonable or contrary to law. The arguments advanced were inconsistent with binding authority and the migration legislation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Federal Court Decision on Judicial Review of Federal Circuit Court Dismissal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error' 'adverse Findings as to Credit' 'protection Visa' 'credibility' 'burden of Proof' 'unreasonableness' 'evidence and Fact Finding']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['jurisdictional Error' 'adverse Findings as to Credit' 'protection Visa' 'credibility' 'burden of Proof' 'unreasonableness' 'evidence and Fact Finding']

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

Judicial Review / Federal Court Decision on Judicial Review of Federal Circuit Court Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in making adverse credibility findings' 'Whether there was no evidence for findings made by the Tribunal' "Whether inconsistencies in the applicant's account were sufficient to reject the claim" 'Whether the Tribunal imposed an impermissible burden of proof' "Whether the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable"]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in making adverse credibility findings on the basis of inconsistencies and circumstances of the applicant's new claim. The Tribunal was entitled to make findings against the applicant without rebutting evidence, and its findings were open on the evidence and not unreasonable or contrary to law. The arguments advanced were inconsistent with binding authority and the migration legislation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'The Applicant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent in the agreed sum of $6,800.']