DKL19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1436

DKL19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1436

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the delay was considerable, the applicant's assertion of illness was unsupported by objective evidence and did not satisfactorily explain the delay, and the proposed procedural fairness ground lacked merit because the Federal Court decision in AAM17 on which the applicant relied had been overturned by the High Court.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Orders Dismissing Judicial Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'immigration Assessment Authority']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Court Practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'safe Haven Enterprise Visa' 'judicial Review' 'procedural Fairness' 'immigration Assessment Authority']

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 to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Orders Dismissing Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time under r 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to file a notice of appeal.' 'Whether the applicant gave a satisfactory explanation for the delay of about 175 days.' 'Whether the proposed appeal ground alleging denial of procedural fairness had sufficient merit to warrant an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the delay was considerable, the applicant's assertion of illness was unsupported by objective evidence and did not satisfactorily explain the delay, and the proposed procedural fairness ground lacked merit because the Federal Court decision in AAM17 on which the applicant relied had been overturned by the High Court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time filed on 23 February 2021 is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs, as agreed or taxed."]