SZUSY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1666

SZUSY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1666

The appeal failed because the second Tribunal's rejection of the Appellant's explanation for inconsistent evidence was open on the evidence and not irrational, and because the Tribunal did not act on the s 438 certificate or the certified folios, which were unrelated to any issue before it and had no relevance to the protection visa claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Protection Visa Decision / Federal Court Appeal; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 438 Certificate' 'disclosure of Documents to Tribunal']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['protection Visa' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review' 'migration Act 1958 (cth) S 438 Certificate' 'disclosure of Documents to Tribunal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Protection Visa Decision / Federal Court Appeal; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in rejecting the contention that the second Tribunal's reasoning about inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence was legally unreasonable or irrational." "Whether an allegedly invalid certificate under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 438 affected the Tribunal's decision where the certified folios were said not to be material to the protection visa claim."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the second Tribunal's rejection of the Appellant's explanation for inconsistent evidence was open on the evidence and not irrational, and because the Tribunal did not act on the s 438 certificate or the certified folios, which were unrelated to any issue before it and had no relevance to the protection visa claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The Appellant pay the First Respondent's costs as assessed or agreed."]