Applicant A166 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 407

Applicant A166 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 407

The extension of time was refused because there was no material showing any arguable jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's adverse credibility-based rejection of the protection visa claim, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay because the asserted ministerial correspondence could not explain an application already filed in March 2003. As the application was out of time for certiorari and mandamus, and prohibition was pointless, the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Relief in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Protection Visa Decision / Application Remitted From the High Court; Motion for Extension of Time and Final Dismissal
Outcome
Application dismissed; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'protection Visa' 'prerogative Relief' 'refugee Review Tribunal']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'refugee Law'] ['extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'protection Visa' 'prerogative Relief' 'refugee Review Tribunal']

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 Prerogative Relief in Respect of a Refugee Review Tribunal Protection Visa Decision / Application Remitted From the High Court; Motion for Extension of Time and Final Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to institute proceedings seeking certiorari and mandamus.' "Whether there was any arguable basis to show jurisdictional error in the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision." 'Whether there was a satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the application.' 'Whether prohibitory relief had any utility if certiorari and mandamus were unavailable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because there was no material showing any arguable jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's adverse credibility-based rejection of the protection visa claim, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay because the asserted ministerial correspondence could not explain an application already filed in March 2003. As the application was out of time for certiorari and mandamus, and prohibition was pointless, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'The applicant pay to the first respondent the costs of the application.' 'No order for costs of the second and third respondents.']