AUD15 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1471

AUD15 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1471

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant is not in Australia, has no right of re-entry and therefore could not be granted the protection visa even if the appeal were successful, rendering the appeal futile. Additionally, legal representatives could not obtain instructions, making prosecution of the appeal impossible.

Parties
Applicant: AUD15; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Protection Visa Subclass 866, Practice and Procedure, Applicant Not in Australia, Right of Re Entry
Administrative Law Migration Law Extension of Time to Appeal Protection Visa Subclass 866 Practice and Procedure Applicant Not in Australia Right of Re Entry

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AUD15

Applicant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal from decision of the Federal Circuit Court
  2. 2 Impact of applicant's voluntary departure from Australia on entitlement to visa and appeal process

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant is not in Australia, has no right of re-entry and therefore could not be granted the protection visa even if the appeal were successful, rendering the appeal futile. Additionally, legal representatives could not obtain instructions, making prosecution of the appeal impossible.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • Leave is granted for Mr Ganasan Arujunan of AUM Legal to withdraw as the solicitor on the record for the applicant.
  • The name of the first respondent be amended to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.