Puri v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1266

Puri v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1266

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the draft notice of appeal disclosed no merit: the applicant had conceded before the Tribunal that she was not enrolled in a course at the relevant time, and could not satisfy the regulatory requirement for visa grant. The grounds advanced did not reveal any error in the reasoning of the Tribunal or the primary judge.

Parties
First Applicant: Pooja Puri; Second Applicant: Pradeep Puri; Third Applicant: Aaradhya Puri; Fourth Applicant: Anshika Puri; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application (appeal) / Decision on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Visa Applications, Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Jurisdictional Error
Administrative Law Immigration Law Visa Applications Extension of Time Judicial Review 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pooja Puri

First Applicant

Pradeep Puri

Second Applicant

Aaradhya Puri

Third Applicant

Anshika Puri

Fourth Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time Application (appeal) / Decision on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the draft appeal disclosed any merit
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal or primary judge erred in finding the applicant was not enrolled in a course of study at the relevant time

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the draft notice of appeal disclosed no merit: the applicant had conceded before the Tribunal that she was not enrolled in a course at the relevant time, and could not satisfy the regulatory requirement for visa grant. The grounds advanced did not reveal any error in the reasoning of the Tribunal or the primary judge.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time in which to appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the first respondent's costs of the application fixed in the sum of $1756, to be payable by instalments by arrangement.