SZTUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the case of SZTUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia that dismissed her application to reinstate an application for judicial review. The applicant argued that she was a genuine refugee due to her political opinion and membership of a particular social group, and that the decision-making process had involved an error of law. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed her application, finding no error of law and that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine fear of persecution.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had demonstrated a genuine fear of persecution for reasons of her political opinion or membership of a particular social group, and whether there was an error of law in the Tribunal's decision. The court also considered whether the applicant had been denied procedural fairness and natural justice. The court found that the Tribunal had considered the applicant's claims relating to her political opinion and the consequences said to flow from it, and that the applicant's claim to membership of a particular social group was not pressed before the Tribunal. The court also found that the applicant's contention that the Tribunal's decision involved an error of law was "really an invitation to undertake impermissible merits review", with no error of law disclosed.

The court dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time and leave to appeal, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine fear of persecution for reasons of her political opinion or membership of a particular social group. The court also found that there was no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and that the applicant had not been denied procedural fairness and natural justice. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent of and incidental to the application. The orders and reasons for judgment in support of these orders were made and published from Chambers.