DIZ16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 767

DIZ16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 767

The draft ground of appeal was unparticularised and did not identify any error in the primary judge's reasons. The applicant's assertion that the Authority failed to consider the facts was insufficient to show appealable error, and no denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error was identified. Accordingly, the proposed ground could not succeed and the extension of time was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application for Extension of Time From a Judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Application refused; applicant to pay the first respondent's costs, to be assessed if not agreed.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'complementary Protection' 'refugee Claims']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'immigration Assessment Authority' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'complementary Protection' 'refugee 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

Migration Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal / Federal Court Application for Extension of Time From a Judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to permit the applicant to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court judgment.' 'Whether the proposed appeal identified any specific error by the primary judge warranting an extension of time.' "Whether the Immigration Assessment Authority's decision suffered from jurisdictional error or denial of procedural fairness."]

Ratio Decidendi

The draft ground of appeal was unparticularised and did not identify any error in the primary judge's reasons. The applicant's assertion that the Authority failed to consider the facts was insufficient to show appealable error, and no denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error was identified. Accordingly, the proposed ground could not succeed and the extension of time was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused; applicant to pay the first respondent's costs, to be assessed if not agreed.

Orders

  • ['The application be refused.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, to be assessed if not agreed.']