BUH16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 638

BUH16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 638

The discretion to extend time was not exercised because the 125 day delay was substantial, the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the period of delay or show that his injury, surgery, rehabilitation or family circumstances prevented timely filing, and none of the proposed grounds identified jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or appealable error by the Federal Circuit Court. The proposed grounds largely sought impermissible merits review or were unsupported allegations of procedural unfairness, bias or irrelevant considerations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court / Application Under R 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'merits Review' 'relocation' 'bias']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'merits Review' 'relocation' 'bias']

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 File a Notice of Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court / Application Under R 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the Federal Circuit Court orders.' 'Whether the 125 day delay was satisfactorily explained.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit, including whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in finding no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.' 'Whether the proposed grounds impermissibly sought merits review rather than identifying appealable error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The discretion to extend time was not exercised because the 125 day delay was substantial, the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the period of delay or show that his injury, surgery, rehabilitation or family circumstances prevented timely filing, and none of the proposed grounds identified jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or appealable error by the Federal Circuit Court. The proposed grounds largely sought impermissible merits review or were unsupported allegations of procedural unfairness, bias or irrelevant considerations.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed."]