DEP16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2017] FCA 1528

DEP16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2017] FCA 1528

The applicant failed to establish an arguable case that either the Tribunal or the Federal Circuit Court committed legal or jurisdictional error. Procedural fairness was afforded throughout, including opportunities to amend, submit evidence, and make submissions. The Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence before it, and neither the Tribunal nor the Federal Circuit Court erred in considering or disposing of the protection visa application. No grounds existed to grant an extension of time or leave to appeal.

Parties
Applicant: DEP16; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Final Determination
Outcome
Application for extension of time in which to file and serve an application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Credibility Assessment, Protection Visa Applications
Migration Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Credibility Assessment Protection Visa Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DEP16

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant was afforded procedural fairness in Tribunal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were in error
  3. 3 Whether there was jurisdictional error in Tribunal or Federal Circuit Court decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish an arguable case that either the Tribunal or the Federal Circuit Court committed legal or jurisdictional error. Procedural fairness was afforded throughout, including opportunities to amend, submit evidence, and make submissions. The Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence before it, and neither the Tribunal nor the Federal Circuit Court erred in considering or disposing of the protection visa application. No grounds existed to grant an extension of time or leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time in which to file and serve an application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time in which to file and serve an application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.