Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1347

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1347

The appeal failed because the Tribunal correctly identified cl 050.222 as a criterion to be satisfied at the time of decision, the appellant conceded that he had not attended an interview by an authorised officer, none of the exceptions in cl 050.222(2), (3) or (4) applied, and there was no jurisdictional error or denial of procedural fairness. The proposed new appeal grounds had no reasonable prospects of success, so leave to raise them was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Leave to raise grounds 2, 4 and 5 of the notice of appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['bridging (class We) Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'migration Regulations 1994 (cth) Cl 050.222' 'leave to Raise New Grounds on Appeal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['bridging (class We) Visa' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'migration Regulations 1994 (cth) Cl 050.222' 'leave to Raise New Grounds on Appeal']

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

Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was affected by jurisdictional error in affirming the refusal to grant a Bridging (Class WE) visa.' 'Whether the Tribunal correctly identified and applied cl 050.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).' 'Whether procedural fairness required the Department to specify a particular date or time for the interview.' 'Whether leave should be granted to raise new appeal grounds concerning a non-disclosure certificate, adverse information, and arrangements to depart Australia.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Tribunal correctly identified cl 050.222 as a criterion to be satisfied at the time of decision, the appellant conceded that he had not attended an interview by an authorised officer, none of the exceptions in cl 050.222(2), (3) or (4) applied, and there was no jurisdictional error or denial of procedural fairness. The proposed new appeal grounds had no reasonable prospects of success, so leave to raise them was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to raise grounds 2, 4 and 5 of the notice of appeal was refused and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to raise grounds 2, 4 and 5 of the notice of appeal is refused.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed."]