Li v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 730
The explanation for the delay in seeking leave to appeal was not adequate; the merits of the proposed appeal were lacking, as the grounds did not raise an arguable case and did not demonstrate error in the Federal Circuit Court or Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decisions. Accordingly, the application for extension of time and leave to appeal should be dismissed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 May 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Decision Following Dismissal in Federal Circuit Court
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['extension of Time for Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'medical Treatment (visitor) Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'judicial Review']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Decision Following Dismissal in Federal Circuit Court
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether there is an adequate explanation for delay in applying for leave to appeal' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted given the merits of the proposed appeal' 'Whether the Federal Circuit Court correctly dismissed the judicial review application' 'Whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by dismissing and confirming the review']
Ratio Decidendi
The explanation for the delay in seeking leave to appeal was not adequate; the merits of the proposed appeal were lacking, as the grounds did not raise an arguable case and did not demonstrate error in the Federal Circuit Court or Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decisions. Accordingly, the application for extension of time and leave to appeal should be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment