BJY19 v Minister For Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1424

BJY19 v Minister For Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1424

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify error in the primary judge's dismissal of the Reinstatement Application. The Reinstatement Application advanced only complaints about the former solicitor and did not articulate any additional or cogent jurisdictional error by the Authority or argument of greater substance than the very weak argument previously rejected. The primary judge's decision was therefore not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant leave being granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Migration Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Reinstatement Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'reinstatement Application' 'leave to Appeal' 'conduct of Solicitor']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'reinstatement Application' 'leave to Appeal' 'conduct of Solicitor']

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 Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Reinstatement Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court's dismissal of the Reinstatement Application." "Whether the primary judge's decision was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal." "Whether complaints about the applicant's former solicitor justified setting aside the earlier refusal of an extension of time." 'Whether any arguable jurisdictional error by the Immigration Assessment Authority was identified.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not identify error in the primary judge's dismissal of the Reinstatement Application. The Reinstatement Application advanced only complaints about the former solicitor and did not articulate any additional or cogent jurisdictional error by the Authority or argument of greater substance than the very weak argument previously rejected. The primary judge's decision was therefore not attended with sufficient doubt to warrant leave being granted.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.' 'Order 1 not be entered until publication of the revised reasons for judgment.']