ASA16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1967

ASA16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1967

The application was dismissed as the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay and failed to identify any arguable case of jurisdictional error in the proposed appeal.

Parties
Applicant: ASA16; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Determination of Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Jurisdictional Error, Federal Court Procedure
Administrative Law Migration Extension of Time to Appeal Jurisdictional Error Federal Court Procedure

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASA16

Applicant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Determination of Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the decision of the Federal Circuit Court
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay
  3. 3 Whether there is any arguable error or jurisdictional error identified in the proposed appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed as the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay and failed to identify any arguable case of jurisdictional error in the proposed appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time filed on 25 June 2019 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.