AGI18 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 127

AGI18 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 127

The adjournment was refused because the appellant did not provide persuasive detail of his attempts to obtain a lawyer for the appeal, had already had an unsuccessful adjournment application in the Federal Circuit Court for that purpose, had enough time to obtain advice apart from the Nepali lawyer, and the proposed need to obtain the Tribunal hearing CD was abstract. The foreshadowed s 438 ground had no substance because the Tribunal's reasons showed the certificate was disclosed to the appellant, treated as invalid, and the documents were discussed with him.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review by the Federal Circuit Court / Application for Adjournment at Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
Application for adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'judicial Review' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'migration Act S 438 Certificate']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['adjournment' 'judicial Review' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'migration Act S 438 Certificate']

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

Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review by the Federal Circuit Court / Application for Adjournment at Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's application for an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal should be granted." 'Whether the appellant had shown a sufficient basis for more time to obtain legal representation and obtain the CD of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing.' 'Whether a foreshadowed ground concerning a certificate issued under s 438 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) had substance.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the appellant did not provide persuasive detail of his attempts to obtain a lawyer for the appeal, had already had an unsuccessful adjournment application in the Federal Circuit Court for that purpose, had enough time to obtain advice apart from the Nepali lawyer, and the proposed need to obtain the Tribunal hearing CD was abstract. The foreshadowed s 438 ground had no substance because the Tribunal's reasons showed the certificate was disclosed to the appellant, treated as invalid, and the documents were discussed with him.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment refused.

Orders

  • ["The appellant's application for an adjournment be refused."]