BQN18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 307

BQN18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 307

The proposed appeal had insufficient merit because the applicant's grounds did not identify legal error in the Tribunal's decision or in the primary judge's discretionary refusal to reinstate the judicial review application. Section 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) had been repealed and was irrelevant, and the applicant's difficulties contacting and supporting her children were not grounds for judicial review or matters bearing on the primary judge's discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time in Which to Seek Leave to Appeal, and Leave to Appeal / Application From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court Refusing Reinstatement of an Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
The application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal was refused; the application for leave to appeal was refused; the application was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'reinstatement' 'appellate Review of Discretion']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'reinstatement' 'appellate Review of Discretion']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Application for Extension of Time in Which to Seek Leave to Appeal, and Leave to Appeal / Application From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court Refusing Reinstatement of an Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there were sufficient prospects of success to grant an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal and leave to appeal.' "Whether the primary judge's refusal to reinstate the application for judicial review involved an error permitting appellate intervention." "Whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by the alleged failure to consider persecution and harm under s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed appeal had insufficient merit because the applicant's grounds did not identify legal error in the Tribunal's decision or in the primary judge's discretionary refusal to reinstate the judicial review application. Section 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) had been repealed and was irrelevant, and the applicant's difficulties contacting and supporting her children were not grounds for judicial review or matters bearing on the primary judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

The application for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal was refused; the application for leave to appeal was refused; the application was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the application."]