BYL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1357

BYL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1357

The proposed appeal did not have any reasonable prospects of success as the alleged errors were either factual and not jurisdictional, were unparticularised assertions, or were not raised in the original application; therefore, there was no utility in granting the extension of time and the application must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: BYL15; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration – Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal – Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Jurisdictional Error, Merits Review, Procedural Fairness
Migration Law Extension of Time Jurisdictional Error Merits Review Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BYL15

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Migration – Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal – Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether factual errors by the Tribunal amount to jurisdictional error
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider individual circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed appeal did not have any reasonable prospects of success as the alleged errors were either factual and not jurisdictional, were unparticularised assertions, or were not raised in the original application; therefore, there was no utility in granting the extension of time and the application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.