AIX15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1017

AIX15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1017

The proposed appeal had no prospect of success. The Tribunal did not act unreasonably in not further pursuing Ms Lim's evidence after an unsuccessful attempt to contact her during the second hearing, particularly because the represented applicant made no request that the Tribunal continue to pursue the evidence, the Tribunal had already heard Ms Lim orally at the first hearing, her earlier evidence was vague and generalised on the central issue, and the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were comprehensive. It was therefore unnecessary to consider prejudice or excuse for the delay, and the extension of time application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court to the Federal Court / Federal Court Hearing of Extension of Time Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'tribunal Obligation to Obtain Oral Evidence']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'tribunal Obligation to Obtain Oral Evidence']

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

Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court to the Federal Court / Federal Court Hearing of Extension of Time Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time within which to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court.' "Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects by alleging that the Tribunal breached s 426 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), made a legally unreasonable decision not to obtain oral evidence from Ms Naree Lim, or failed to have regard to the applicant's request that it obtain that evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed appeal had no prospect of success. The Tribunal did not act unreasonably in not further pursuing Ms Lim's evidence after an unsuccessful attempt to contact her during the second hearing, particularly because the represented applicant made no request that the Tribunal continue to pursue the evidence, the Tribunal had already heard Ms Lim orally at the first hearing, her earlier evidence was vague and generalised on the central issue, and the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were comprehensive. It was therefore unnecessary to consider prejudice or excuse for the delay, and the extension of time application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of the application, as agreed or taxed."]