AUM17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 306

AUM17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 306

The applicant's first protection visa application was valid, and because it had been refused and no determination under s 48B had been made, s 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) prevented the applicant from making a further valid protection visa application. The proposed appeal did not challenge the primary judge's decisive reasoning on s 48A and had no prospect of success, so despite the delay not being unduly long, an extension of time should be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application / Application for Extension of Time in the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Application for an extension of time dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa Application' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'section 48 a Bar on Further Protection Visa Applications' 'validity of Approved Form 866' 'judicial Review']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa Application' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'section 48 a Bar on Further Protection Visa Applications' 'validity of Approved Form 866' 'judicial Review']

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 Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application / Application for Extension of Time in the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended to allow the applicant to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court judgment.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success.' "Whether the applicant's first protection visa application was invalid because it used a later version of Form 866." 'Whether s 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) prevented the applicant from making a further valid protection visa application.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's first protection visa application was valid, and because it had been refused and no determination under s 48B had been made, s 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) prevented the applicant from making a further valid protection visa application. The proposed appeal did not challenge the primary judge's decisive reasoning on s 48A and had no prospect of success, so despite the delay not being unduly long, an extension of time should be refused.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time be dismissed.' "The applicant to pay the respondent's costs, to be assessed if not agreed."]