SZTMI v Minister for Immigration - [2015] FCCA 228

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTMI & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2015] FCCA 228

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – whether Tribunal failed to consider an integer of the applicant’s claims – whether Tribunal failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness –allegation of bias – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2), 65, 424A, 476

First Applicant:

SZTMI

Second Applicant:

SZTMJ

Third Applicant:

SZTMK

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 2722 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Nicholls

Hearing date:

15 September 2014

Date of Last Submission:

15 September 2014

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

6 February 2015

REPRESENTATION

First Applicant:

In Person

Second Applicant:

In Person

Third Applicant:

By his Litigation Guardian

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Ms K Hooper of DLA Piper Australia

ORDERS

The application made on 5 November 2013 is dismissed.
The first and second applicants pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $4,000.00.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2722 of 2013

SZTMI

First Applicant

SZTMJ
Second Applicant

SZTMK
Third Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application made pursuant to s.476 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 5 November 2013 seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 16 October 2013 which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse protection visas to the applicants.

Background

The Minister has filed a bundle of relevant materials (the “Court Book” – “CB”) which was in evidence before the Court. The following relevant background can be ascertained.
The applicants before the Court are the primary applicant (“the applicant”), his de facto partner (“the second applicant”),…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read SZTMI v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] FCCA 228
Decision Date: 6 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SZTMI, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The core of the dispute concerned allegations that the Tribunal failed to consider all aspects of the applicant's claims and did not afford the applicant procedural fairness, including an allegation of bias. The matter was heard by Judge Nicholls in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the Refugee Review Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider an integer of the applicant's claims, and whether the Tribunal had breached its duty to afford the applicant procedural fairness. The applicant also raised an allegation of bias against the Tribunal.

Judge Nicholls found that there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. The reasoning indicated that the Tribunal had adequately considered the applicant's claims and had afforded procedural fairness. The allegation of bias was also not substantiated. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed. The applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs in the amount of $4,000.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application made on 5 November 2013 is dismissed.

2. The first and second applicants pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $4,000.00.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.