SZUUC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 271

SZUUC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 271

Although the delay in filing was relatively short, explained to some extent, and caused no prejudice to the first respondent, the proposed appeal had no prospect of success. The Tribunal found that, given the short period of detention likely on return to Sri Lanka, there was less than a real chance or risk that the applicant would suffer serious or significant harm, and it made no finding about intentional infliction of harm. In any event, the High Court's decision in SZTAL confirmed the ordinary meaning of intention and was inconsistent with the applicant's proposed ground. No error by the primary judge was disclosed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration; Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time in Which to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Judgment Dismissing Judicial Review of a Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'significant Harm' 'illegal Departure From Sri Lanka' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'significant Harm' 'illegal Departure From Sri Lanka' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error']

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 / Application for Extension of Time in Which to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Judgment Dismissing Judicial Review of a Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court decision.' "Whether the proposed appeal identified legal error in the Tribunal's treatment of intention for the purposes of torture or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)." 'Whether the proposed appeal had prospects of success in light of SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 347 ALR 405.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the delay in filing was relatively short, explained to some extent, and caused no prejudice to the first respondent, the proposed appeal had no prospect of success. The Tribunal found that, given the short period of detention likely on return to Sri Lanka, there was less than a real chance or risk that the applicant would suffer serious or significant harm, and it made no finding about intentional infliction of harm. In any event, the High Court's decision in SZTAL confirmed the ordinary meaning of intention and was inconsistent with the applicant's proposed ground. No error by the primary judge was disclosed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time in which to appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant to pay the first respondent's costs."]