DRV16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1318

DRV16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1318

The application for an extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospects of success. The Tribunal had rationally and coherently rejected the factual claims about loan sharks, the husband's drug addiction and likely harm on return, the Federal Circuit Court correctly found no jurisdictional error, there was no foundation for the allegations of bias, and the first applicant had an opportunity to advance her case before the primary judge but did not do so.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Protection Visa Judicial Review Appeal / Application for Extension of Time in Which to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for an extension of time dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'protection Visa' 'refugee Criterion' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'bias']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time' 'protection Visa' 'refugee Criterion' 'complementary Protection' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'bias']

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 Protection Visa Judicial Review Appeal / Application for Extension of Time in Which to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended to file and serve a notice of appeal.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit or real prospects of success.' "Whether the Tribunal failed properly to consider the risk of harm from the applicant's husband and loan sharks in Malaysia." 'Whether the Tribunal or Federal Circuit Court acted with bias.' 'Whether there was procedural unfairness before the Federal Circuit Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospects of success. The Tribunal had rationally and coherently rejected the factual claims about loan sharks, the husband's drug addiction and likely harm on return, the Federal Circuit Court correctly found no jurisdictional error, there was no foundation for the allegations of bias, and the first applicant had an opportunity to advance her case before the primary judge but did not do so.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed with costs.']