SZUSH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors; CZBO v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors

In *SZUSH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors* and *CZBO v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Ors*, the High Court of Australia considered applications for orders to show cause, including applications for certiorari and mandamus, and for extensions of time to pursue judicial review of decisions made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT), the Federal Circuit Court, and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The applicants, SZUSH and CZBO, sought to challenge decisions refusing them protection visas and related bridging visas, as well as the Federal Circuit Court's refusal to extend time for their judicial review applications.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the applicants had established sufficient grounds to warrant extensions of time for their applications, and whether the RRT and the Federal Circuit Court had committed jurisdictional errors in their respective decisions. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the RRT erred in assessing the credibility of the applicants' evidence and in its consideration of country information, and if the Federal Circuit Court's refusal to grant an extension of time was unreasonable or based on an error of principle. The applicants also contended that statutory time limits imposed by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) were unconstitutional infringements on the High Court's original jurisdiction under s 75(v) of the Constitution.

The High Court dismissed the applications for extensions of time. The Court found that the delays in bringing the applications were inordinate and inadequately explained, with the applicants relying on reasons previously rejected by lower courts, such as seeking ministerial intervention or awaiting the outcome of related proceedings. The Court reiterated that the assessment of an applicant's credibility and the reliability of their evidence is a legitimate and necessary part of the RRT's decision-making process, and that inconsistencies in evidence can be a valid basis for adverse findings, provided they are properly considered. The Court also found no error in the RRT's consideration of country information or in the Federal Circuit Court's refusal to extend time, deeming the proposed grounds of review to be without merit and the applications to be futile. The Court rejected the argument that statutory time limits were unconstitutional, finding that s 486A(2) of the *Migration Act* was applicable and that the exercise of discretion under that provision required satisfaction that granting an extension would be in the interests of the administration of justice, which was not demonstrated in these cases.