BHB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 42

BHB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 42

The grounds now raised by the applicant were neither previously raised nor clearly arising from the material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not in error for not considering these claims. The proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; therefore, the application for an extension of time is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Determination of Application for Extension of Time Before Full Court of the Federal Court
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'reasonableness of Relocation Within Country of Origin' 'assessment of Complementary Protection Claims' 'ptsd and Requirements for Medical Care in Protection Visa Review']
['migration'] ['extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'reasonableness of Relocation Within Country of Origin' 'assessment of Complementary Protection Claims' 'ptsd and Requirements for Medical Care in Protection Visa 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

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Determination of Application for Extension of Time Before Full Court of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the amended proposed grounds of appeal had reasonable prospects of success' 'Whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error in its approach to internal relocation and complementary protection' "Whether the Tribunal properly considered the applicant's psychiatric condition in assessing reasonableness of relocation and risk of harm"]

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds now raised by the applicant were neither previously raised nor clearly arising from the material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not in error for not considering these claims. The proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; therefore, the application for an extension of time is refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time is refused.' 'The applicant pay the first respondent costs of the application.']