CUU17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1464

CUU17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1464

The proposed appeal was not arguable because the election-period contention was not supported by evidence before the Tribunal and was not a substantial, clearly articulated argument advanced to the Tribunal. The Tribunal understood the possible relevance of election-time political violence, raised that issue with the applicant, and properly considered the claims about the 2009 attack and the applicant's father. The asserted errors therefore did not establish jurisdictional error, and the merits did not justify an extension of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time in Which to Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of a Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Application for Extension of Time Refused
Outcome
Application for an extension of time refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'failure to Consider Claims']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'judicial Review' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'failure to Consider Claims']

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 in Which to Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review of a Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Application for Extension of Time Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal failed to consider a substantial, clearly articulated argument that the 2009 attack was politically motivated because it occurred in the period of preparation for the January 2010 Presidential election and April 2010 Parliamentary election.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to have regard to the same election-period contention when rejecting the claim that the applicant's father disappeared." 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit to justify an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed appeal was not arguable because the election-period contention was not supported by evidence before the Tribunal and was not a substantial, clearly articulated argument advanced to the Tribunal. The Tribunal understood the possible relevance of election-time political violence, raised that issue with the applicant, and properly considered the claims about the 2009 attack and the applicant's father. The asserted errors therefore did not establish jurisdictional error, and the merits did not justify an extension of time.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time in which to institute an appeal from the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dated 25 January 2018 be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs, as agreed or assessed."]