DRG16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 304

DRG16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 304

The proposed grounds of appeal were devoid of merit and did not identify any arguable error of law or fact warranting appellate intervention; it would be futile to grant an extension of time to appeal.

Parties
Applicant: DRG16; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Immigration Assessment Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Disposition of Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Jurisdictional Error, Procedural Fairness, Merits Review
Administrative Law Migration Law Practice and Procedure Extension of Time to Appeal Jurisdictional Error Procedural Fairness Merits Review

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DRG16

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Immigration Assessment Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Disposition of Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to file notice of appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether proposed grounds of appeal disclose arguable error by the primary judge
  3. 3 Whether findings of the Immigration Assessment Authority were open and lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed grounds of appeal were devoid of merit and did not identify any arguable error of law or fact warranting appellate intervention; it would be futile to grant an extension of time to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time to appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs on a lump sum basis assessed in the amount of $4,000.