Pinpoint · Judgment search

CSU16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2022] FCA 1509

Federal Court of Australia · 15 December 2022 · Official judgment

Cited by 0 indexed judgments

No indexed judgment cites this case yet.

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

Authorities cited (13)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57 Cited cited 962×
  2. Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 [2003] HCA 30 Cited cited 648×
  3. Applicant NAFF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] HCA 62 Cited cited 128×
  4. VAAD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 117 Cited cited 119×
  5. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT [2013] FCA 317 Cited cited 393×
  6. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSRS [2014] FCAFC 16 Cited cited 142×
  7. SZTFQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 562 Cited cited 36×
  8. DTN16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1525 Cited cited 13×
  9. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3 Cited cited 693×
  10. BAU18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1169 Cited cited 2×
  11. CSU16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2021] FCCA 73 Cited
  12. Plaintiff M1-2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 Cited cited 303×
  13. Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26 Cited cited 192×
How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.