AYG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1408

AYG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1408

The applicant failed to identify any error on the part of the primary judge and provided no viable grounds for appeal; prospects of success in appeal are insufficient to warrant extension of time; accordingly, the application for extension of time is dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review' 'complementary Protection']
['administrative Law' 'immigration Law' 'human Rights'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review' 'complementary Protection']

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

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted' 'Whether there was jurisdictional error in the Federal Circuit Court decision' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant information or took account of irrelevant considerations' "Whether Tribunal's findings lacked evidential support" "Whether Tribunal's decision was unreasonable, illogical or irrational"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to identify any error on the part of the primary judge and provided no viable grounds for appeal; prospects of success in appeal are insufficient to warrant extension of time; accordingly, the application for extension of time is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal filed on 30 August 2016 is dismissed." "The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs."]