CBO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1323

CBO15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1323

There was no acceptable explanation for the delay in appealing, and the proposed appeal did not have reasonable prospects of success, particularly as the Tribunal addressed the relevant country information and inconsistencies in evidence appropriately.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Extension of Time Application
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; applicant to pay costs to first respondent.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'credit Findings' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'credit Findings' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether delay in filing appeal is excused' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant considerations including the effect of trauma on memory' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to assess country information as to risk of harm or persecution on return']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no acceptable explanation for the delay in appealing, and the proposed appeal did not have reasonable prospects of success, particularly as the Tribunal addressed the relevant country information and inconsistencies in evidence appropriately.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; applicant to pay costs to first respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time filed on 26 June 2017 be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, such costs to be taxed in default of an agreement.']