BRT15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 660

BRT15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 660

The period of delay was substantial and the applicant's explanation was inadequate. More significantly, the proposed appeal lacked merit as the Tribunal addressed all integers of the applicant's claim, including the father's perceived LTTE association, and there was no jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: BRT15; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Protection Visa, Judicial Review, Jurisdictional Error
Migration Law Administrative Law Extension of Time Protection Visa Judicial Review Jurisdictional Error

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BRT15

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discretion to grant an extension of time to appeal should be exercised
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider an integer of the applicant's claim
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error

Ratio Decidendi

The period of delay was substantial and the applicant's explanation was inadequate. More significantly, the proposed appeal lacked merit as the Tribunal addressed all integers of the applicant's claim, including the father's perceived LTTE association, and there was no jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time to appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.