BWI18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 290

BWI18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 290

The extension of time was refused because, although the required extension was comparatively short and some explanation for delay was given, the proposed appeal had no prospects of success. The Tribunal's March 2018 conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to review either its earlier February 2018 decision or the delegate's March 2017 decision a second time was correct, and the proposed grounds alleging judicial error, incorrect information and bias lacked any identified or factual foundation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Migration; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Decision Dismissing Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; proceeding dismissed; costs awarded to the First Respondent.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa Refusal' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'second Application for Merits Review' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'prospects of Success']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['protection Visa Refusal' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'second Application for Merits Review' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'prospects of Success']

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

Migration; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for an Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Decision Dismissing Judicial Review of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended for the Applicant to appeal the Federal Circuit Court's decision." "Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had jurisdiction to review a delegate's protection visa refusal a second time after an earlier Tribunal review." 'Whether the proposed grounds alleging judicial error, incorrect information and bias had merit.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because, although the required extension was comparatively short and some explanation for delay was given, the proposed appeal had no prospects of success. The Tribunal's March 2018 conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to review either its earlier February 2018 decision or the delegate's March 2017 decision a second time was correct, and the proposed grounds alleging judicial error, incorrect information and bias lacked any identified or factual foundation.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; proceeding dismissed; costs awarded to the First Respondent.

Orders

  • ['The Application for an extension of time in which to appeal is refused.' 'The proceeding is dismissed.' 'The Applicant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent, either as agreed or assessed.']