AKU15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 165

AKU15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 165

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused as the underlying grounds had no merit, because the Tribunal correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear an out-of-time application for review of a protection visa refusal. There is no statutory discretion to permit late applications. Neither hardship nor fault by the applicant's adviser can confer jurisdiction nor support a viable appeal. The time for lodging such applications is strictly governed by statute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'jurisdiction of Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'merits Review' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'jurisdiction of Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'merits Review' 'procedural Fairness']

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 / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in dismissing an application to reinstate a judicial review after the applicant failed to appear at a show cause hearing' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decision given an out-of-time application under s 412 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)' 'Whether the Tribunal had any discretion in allowing late applications for merits review']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused as the underlying grounds had no merit, because the Tribunal correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear an out-of-time application for review of a protection visa refusal. There is no statutory discretion to permit late applications. Neither hardship nor fault by the applicant's adviser can confer jurisdiction nor support a viable appeal. The time for lodging such applications is strictly governed by statute.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs."]