CSR15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 736

CSR15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 736

The extension of time was refused because, even assuming in the applicant's favour that the delay was short or excusable and caused no prejudice, the proposed grounds of appeal lacked relevant substance. Ground 1 did not properly identify a ground of appeal, and Ground 2 was a general contention without merit because the Tribunal's reasons showed that it considered the applicant's claims and the primary judge's reasons showed conscientious engagement with the grounds raised.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration Protection (class Xa) Visa; Application for an Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for an Extension of Time to Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for an extension of time within which to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection (class Xa) Visa' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'sri Lanka Protection Claims' 'failed Asylum Seeker' 'illegal Departure']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection (class Xa) Visa' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'judicial Review' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'sri Lanka Protection Claims' 'failed Asylum Seeker' 'illegal Departure']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Protection (class Xa) Visa; Application for an Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for an Extension of Time to Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court decision.' 'Whether the proposed grounds of appeal had sufficient merit or substance.' "Whether the Tribunal or the primary judge failed to consider the applicant's claims or evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because, even assuming in the applicant's favour that the delay was short or excusable and caused no prejudice, the proposed grounds of appeal lacked relevant substance. Ground 1 did not properly identify a ground of appeal, and Ground 2 was a general contention without merit because the Tribunal's reasons showed that it considered the applicant's claims and the primary judge's reasons showed conscientious engagement with the grounds raised.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time within which to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to his application."]