CEO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 232

CEO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 232

Because the Federal Circuit Court decision sought to be challenged was a refusal to extend time under s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476A(3)(a) barred an appeal to the Federal Court. The Federal Court therefore had no power to entertain the application for extension of time and leave to appeal, and no jurisdictional-error claim was made or identifiable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs against the first and second applicants.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa Refusal' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'competency of Appeal' 'litigation Representative for Minor Applicant' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration' 'administrative Law' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['protection Visa Refusal' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'competency of Appeal' 'litigation Representative for Minor Applicant' 'jurisdictional Error']

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

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for extension of time and leave to appeal from a Federal Circuit Court decision refusing to extend time under s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether a litigation representative should be appointed for the minor third applicant.' 'Whether any claim of jurisdictional error in the Federal Circuit Court decision was made or identifiable.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Federal Circuit Court decision sought to be challenged was a refusal to extend time under s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476A(3)(a) barred an appeal to the Federal Court. The Federal Court therefore had no power to entertain the application for extension of time and leave to appeal, and no jurisdictional-error claim was made or identifiable.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs against the first and second applicants.

Orders

  • ['Applicant CEO15 be appointed the litigation representative of applicant CEQ15 for the purposes of this proceeding pursuant to r 9.61 of the Federal Court of Australia Rules 2011 (Cth).' 'The application filed on 13 October 2016 be dismissed.' 'The first and second applicants pay the costs of the first respondent...