SZWAA v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 295

SZWAA v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 295

The sole amended ground of appeal depended on the proposition that the Full Court's construction in SZTAL was wrong, but the High Court in SZTAL (HCA) confirmed that intention in the relevant provisions requires actual, subjective intention. Accordingly, the legal basis of the amended ground fell away, and the appellant otherwise identified no appellable error in the Federal Circuit Court's decision. Post-review and post-judgment material could not establish jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or appellable error by the primary judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'appellable Error' 'intentional Infliction of Harm' 'failed Asylum Seeker']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'appellable Error' 'intentional Infliction of Harm' 'failed Asylum Seeker']

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 Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in following SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 69; (2016) 243 FCR 556 on the construction of the intent requirements in s 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' "Whether the Tribunal made jurisdictional error in its consideration of the appellant's protection visa claims and complementary protection claim." 'Whether post-review or post-judgment material could establish jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or appellable error by the primary judge.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sole amended ground of appeal depended on the proposition that the Full Court's construction in SZTAL was wrong, but the High Court in SZTAL (HCA) confirmed that intention in the relevant provisions requires actual, subjective intention. Accordingly, the legal basis of the amended ground fell away, and the appellant otherwise identified no appellable error in the Federal Circuit Court's decision. Post-review and post-judgment material could not establish jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or appellable error by the primary judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed with costs.']