SZUHK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 197

SZUHK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 197

The applications were dismissed because the applicant did not appear and, in any event, the proposed grounds of appeal did not identify appealable error: the first three grounds repeated merit-based challenges to Tribunal factual findings and the fourth complaint about the change of judge had no substance. The proposed appeal had no prospect of success, so the criteria for extension of time and leave to appeal were not satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Applications for Extension of Time and for Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application From Federal Circuit Court Decision Dismissed
Outcome
The application for extension of time to appeal and the application for leave to appeal were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'non Appearance']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal Review' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'non Appearance']

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

Applications for Extension of Time and for Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application From Federal Circuit Court Decision Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applications should be dismissed because the applicant did not appear at the hearing.' 'Whether the proposed grounds of appeal identified any error by the Federal Circuit Court judge.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant an extension of time or leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were dismissed because the applicant did not appear and, in any event, the proposed grounds of appeal did not identify appealable error: the first three grounds repeated merit-based challenges to Tribunal factual findings and the fourth complaint about the change of judge had no substance. The proposed appeal had no prospect of success, so the criteria for extension of time and leave to appeal were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

The application for extension of time to appeal and the application for leave to appeal were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time to appeal and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs to be agreed or taxed."]