BLS16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 192

BLS16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 192

The application for an extension of time was refused because none of the draft grounds or general allegations disclosed sufficient merit. The alleged imputed political opinion claim was not raised before the primary judge, was not expressly put to the Tribunal, and did not arise tolerably clearly from the material. The complaints about inconsistent evidence, police complaints, country information, complementary protection, and bias did not demonstrate jurisdictional error. The bias allegation was unsupported by evidence, and any complaint about the delegate's process could not found review because the Tribunal hearing was de novo. In those circumstances, despite the short delay and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Application for Extension of Time Under R 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)
Outcome
Application for an extension of time refused; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'bias' 'credibility Findings' 'failure to Consider Claims' 'complementary Protection']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'bias' 'credibility Findings' 'failure to Consider Claims' '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

Migration Appeal; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Application for Extension of Time Under R 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court decision.' 'Whether the proposed appeal grounds had sufficient merit to warrant an extension of time.' 'Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision was affected by bias.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider a claim or integer of a claim, including imputed political opinion.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant country information or complementary protection issues.' "Whether matters concerning the delegate's process could be reviewed in the proposed appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because none of the draft grounds or general allegations disclosed sufficient merit. The alleged imputed political opinion claim was not raised before the primary judge, was not expressly put to the Tribunal, and did not arise tolerably clearly from the material. The complaints about inconsistent evidence, police complaints, country information, complementary protection, and bias did not demonstrate jurisdictional error. The bias allegation was unsupported by evidence, and any complaint about the delegate's process could not found review because the Tribunal hearing was de novo. In those circumstances, despite the short delay and...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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