BRM15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 605

BRM15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 605

The proposed appeal lacked merit because the grounds either repeated the applicant's protection claims and sought impermissible merits review, raised an unsupported allegation of bias not advanced below, or added no substantive point; no appealable error in the Federal Circuit Court decision or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision was shown. For that reason, the applications for extension of time and leave to appeal were dismissed without needing to decide whether the delay explanation was acceptable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Migration Judicial Review Appeal Related Application / Application for an Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Federal Circuit Court Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Findings' 'complementary Protection']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'credibility Findings' '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 Judicial Review Appeal Related Application / Application for an Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Federal Circuit Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted for the application for leave to appeal.' 'If an extension of time were granted, whether leave to appeal should be granted.' 'Whether the proposed appeal disclosed appealable error in the Federal Circuit Court decision or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed appeal lacked merit because the grounds either repeated the applicant's protection claims and sought impermissible merits review, raised an unsupported allegation of bias not advanced below, or added no substantive point; no appealable error in the Federal Circuit Court decision or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision was shown. For that reason, the applications for extension of time and leave to appeal were dismissed without needing to decide whether the delay explanation was acceptable.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal filed 30 December 2015 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application."]