Ram v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 159

Ram v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 159

Because Mr Ram’s merits review application to the Tribunal was lodged outside the 21-day statutory period, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the legislative framework does not allow extension of that period; therefore, there is no utility in granting an extension of time to seek leave to appeal as the appeal is bound to fail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal / Final Determination
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'jurisdiction of Migration Review Tribunal' 'notification of Visa Decision']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['extension of Time' 'jurisdiction of Migration Review Tribunal' 'notification of Visa Decision']

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 Seek Leave to Appeal / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether extension of time to seek leave to appeal should be granted' 'Whether Tribunal had jurisdiction due to out-of-time application' 'Whether notification of visa refusal was valid under Migration Act']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Ram’s merits review application to the Tribunal was lodged outside the 21-day statutory period, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and the legislative framework does not allow extension of that period; therefore, there is no utility in granting an extension of time to seek leave to appeal as the appeal is bound to fail.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Circuit Court dated 14 October 2013 is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent Minister's costs of the application."]