BQQ15 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 218

BQQ15 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 218

The applicant’s delay in applying for extension of time was excessive and unsatisfactorily explained. The proposed new ground of appeal was not raised below and, even if permitted, would not succeed because the Tribunal’s adverse credibility findings, while containing some peripheral errors, were not legally unreasonable or material to the outcome. The application for extension of time was refused and the applicant was ordered to pay the Minister’s costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration – Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Full Court Decision on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review' 'adverse Credibility Findings' 'legal Unreasonableness']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review' 'adverse Credibility Findings' 'legal Unreasonableness']

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 – Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Full Court Decision on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted in a migration matter' "Whether the proposed ground of appeal, that the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were legally unreasonable, is arguable" 'Whether errors by the Tribunal in assessing credibility amount to jurisdictional error']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant’s delay in applying for extension of time was excessive and unsatisfactorily explained. The proposed new ground of appeal was not raised below and, even if permitted, would not succeed because the Tribunal’s adverse credibility findings, while containing some peripheral errors, were not legally unreasonable or material to the outcome. The application for extension of time was refused and the applicant was ordered to pay the Minister’s costs.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal be refused." "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application."]