ENU18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1391

ENU18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1391

The proposed new ground had no prospect of success because no claim was made before the Authority that the wife would be persecuted as a member of a particular social group of persons with diabetes requiring medication, no material suggested systematic and discriminatory conduct against persons needing healthcare or medication in Iraq, the finding that the family was not wealthy did not prove they would be unable to access healthcare, and the applicants provided no detail or evidence about the wife's medical needs, treatment, medication, costs or inability to access care. Since the proposed ground was hopeless, no useful result could arise from granting an extension of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration; Practice and Procedure / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court and for Leave to Add a Proposed New Ground of Review
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; leave to rely on the proposed new ground refused in substance because the proposed ground had no merit.
Legal Topics
['application for Extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'proper, Genuine and Realistic Consideration' 'protection Visas' 'particular Social Group' 'serious Harm' 'systematic and Discriminatory Conduct' 'complementary Protection']
['administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights' 'migration Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['application for Extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Raise New Ground on Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'proper, Genuine and Realistic Consideration' 'protection Visas' 'particular Social Group' 'serious Harm' 'systematic and Discriminatory Conduct' 'complementary Protection']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration; Practice and Procedure / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court and for Leave to Add a Proposed New Ground of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was in the interests of justice to permit the applicants to add a proposed new ground of review that was not raised in the Federal Circuit Court.' "Whether the Immigration Assessment Authority failed to engage with, or acted legally unreasonably in relation to, the wife's asserted inability to access diabetes medication or healthcare in Iraq." 'Whether the material before the Authority raised a claim that the wife feared persecution by reason of membership of a particular social group consisting of persons in Iraq with diabetes requiring medication.' 'Whether the proposed new ground had sufficient merit to justify an extension of time to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed new ground had no prospect of success because no claim was made before the Authority that the wife would be persecuted as a member of a particular social group of persons with diabetes requiring medication, no material suggested systematic and discriminatory conduct against persons needing healthcare or medication in Iraq, the finding that the family was not wealthy did not prove they would be unable to access healthcare, and the applicants provided no detail or evidence about the wife's medical needs, treatment, medication, costs or inability to access care. Since the proposed ground was hopeless, no useful result could arise from granting an extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; leave to rely on the proposed new ground refused in substance because the proposed ground had no merit.

Orders

  • ['The first applicant be appointed as the litigation guardian for the third applicant for the purposes of this application for an extension of time filed on 20 March 2019.' 'The application for an extension of time be dismissed.' "The first, second and fourth applicants pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the...