SZJYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 135

SZJYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 135

The application for an extension of time was refused because, although the unsatisfactory explanation for the approximately 49 day delay was not by itself determinative, the proposed appeal had no prospects of success. The proposed grounds did not raise or arguably raise jurisdictional error. The Tribunal's findings that the first applicant was not incapacitated for work, that there was no adoption relationship with Mr Laba Sarkis, and that relevant visa criteria in cl 802.212 and cl 802.214 were not met were open to it, and the Tribunal's decision was plainly right.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal From an Order Made by the Federal Magistrates Court / Federal Court Application Under O 52 R 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'child (residence) (class Bt) Visa' 'dependent Child' 'adoption' 'incapacity for Work']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'child (residence) (class Bt) Visa' 'dependent Child' 'adoption' 'incapacity for Work']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal From an Order Made by the Federal Magistrates Court / Federal Court Application Under O 52 R 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended to file and serve a notice of appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court order dismissing the judicial review application.' "Whether the proposed appeal had any prospects of success by identifying jurisdictional error in the Migration Review Tribunal's decision." 'Whether the Tribunal erred in affirming refusal of Child (Residence) (Class BT) visas because the applicants did not satisfy cl 802.212 and cl 802.214 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because, although the unsatisfactory explanation for the approximately 49 day delay was not by itself determinative, the proposed appeal had no prospects of success. The proposed grounds did not raise or arguably raise jurisdictional error. The Tribunal's findings that the first applicant was not incapacitated for work, that there was no adoption relationship with Mr Laba Sarkis, and that relevant visa criteria in cl 802.212 and cl 802.214 were not met were open to it, and the Tribunal's decision was plainly right.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal be refused.']