SZSNN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the Federal Court of Australia, SZSNN, a citizen of Nepal, applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the Federal Circuit Court, which had dismissed his application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal to refuse his application for a protection visa. The applicant sought to argue that the Tribunal failed to comply with the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), had deprived him of natural justice, and had made an error in failing to consider whether Australia owed him protection obligations under the complementary protection regime. The Court was also asked to consider whether leave to appeal was required and, if so, whether it should be granted.

The Court considered whether leave to appeal was required and found that the order for summary dismissal of the application for judicial review was interlocutory, meaning that leave was required unless an exception applied under s 24(1C) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Court noted that the exception in s 24(1C)(a) applies to appeals from interlocutory judgments affecting the liberty of an individual, but was not satisfied that the applicant's appeal fell within that exception. The Court also considered whether the applicant had a real chance of success on the merits of the appeal but found that the appeal was without merit.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the Minister's costs. The Court found that the Tribunal had not erred in law or made a jurisdictional error in refusing the applicant’s application for a protection visa, and that the applicant’s claims were not credible. The Court also found that the proposed fresh evidence would not have led to a different result being reached by the Court below and that the appeal was without any realistic chances of success.