CLS16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 237

CLS16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 237

The applicant failed to demonstrate merit in the proposed ground of appeal, as the Authority expressly considered the risk of harm to him as a Hazara in Islamabad. Accordingly, the application for extension of time was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time (appeal) / Judgment on Extension of Time Application
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'merits of Appeal']
['administrative Law' 'immigration Law'] ['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'protection Visa' 'merits of Appeal']

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 (appeal) / Judgment on Extension of Time Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to file an appeal' "Whether the Immigration Assessment Authority failed to consider relevant information regarding applicant's vulnerability as a Hazara in Islamabad"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate merit in the proposed ground of appeal, as the Authority expressly considered the risk of harm to him as a Hazara in Islamabad. Accordingly, the application for extension of time was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs'." 'The application for extension of time be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $3,000."]