EDV17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1980

EDV17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1980

There was insufficient merit in either draft ground to warrant an extension of time. The Tribunal's reference to the applicant not raising public criticism of King Abdullah during the DIBP interview was better read in context as a minor slip referring to the protection visa application, not a perverse or jurisdictional error. The Tribunal also considered the possibility that the applicant might voice opinions in Jordan and that they might enter the public sphere, and determined within jurisdiction that his mental health condition would be taken into account; the proposed second ground would not succeed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Protection Visa Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal / Application Under R 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) to Extend Time to File a Notice of Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Application refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'adverse Credibility Findings' 'complementary Protection']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'jurisdictional Error' 'adverse Credibility Findings' 'complementary Protection']

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 Protection Visa Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal / Application Under R 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) to Extend Time to File a Notice of Appeal From Orders of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended under r 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to file a notice of appeal filed outside the 21 days prescribed by r 36.03.' "Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit where the first draft ground alleged legal unreasonableness based on the Tribunal's statement that the applicant had not raised public criticism of King Abdullah during the DIBP interview." "Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit where the second draft ground alleged that the Tribunal failed to address the applicant's claim that he was unable to control what he said because of his mental condition."]

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient merit in either draft ground to warrant an extension of time. The Tribunal's reference to the applicant not raising public criticism of King Abdullah during the DIBP interview was better read in context as a minor slip referring to the protection visa application, not a perverse or jurisdictional error. The Tribunal also considered the possibility that the applicant might voice opinions in Jordan and that they might enter the public sphere, and determined within jurisdiction that his mental health condition would be taken into account; the proposed second ground would not succeed.

Court Disposition

Application refused with costs.

Orders

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