Daw v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 123

Daw v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 123

The Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment was not unreasonable and did not deny the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present his case, having regard to the statutory 84-day timeframe, the history of the adjournment request, the time available to prepare, the absence of adequate explanation for delay, and the fact that the appellant provided written submissions, supporting material, and was heard orally with an interpreter. Grounds not argued before the primary judge and previously abandoned were not permitted to be relied upon on appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Federal Court Dismissing an Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['visa Cancellation Under Character Test' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['visa Cancellation Under Character Test' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review']

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 Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Federal Court Dismissing an Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal denied procedural fairness or breached s 39 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) by refusing an adjournment to allow further preparation by the appellant's solicitor." 'Whether the appellant should be permitted to rely on grounds not argued before the primary judge and previously abandoned.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment was not unreasonable and did not deny the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present his case, having regard to the statutory 84-day timeframe, the history of the adjournment request, the time available to prepare, the absence of adequate explanation for delay, and the fact that the appellant provided written submissions, supporting material, and was heard orally with an interpreter. Grounds not argued before the primary judge and previously abandoned were not permitted to be relied upon on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' 'The appellant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent.']