EKS20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1363

EKS20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1363

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the only proposed ground of judicial review was bound to fail. In light of Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs, no arguable jurisdictional error arose from the Assistant Minister deciding that it was unnecessary to determine whether non-refoulement obligations were owed to the applicant where the applicant could apply for a protection visa, and the Assistant Minister's reasons showed that he read, identified, understood and evaluated the relevant representations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time in Which to Seek Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs, to be agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'mandatory Visa Cancellation' 'revocation Under S 501 Ca(4)' 'character Test' 'non Refoulement Obligations' 'protection Visa']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'mandatory Visa Cancellation' 'revocation Under S 501 Ca(4)' 'character Test' 'non Refoulement Obligations' 'protection Visa']

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 in Which to Seek Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to apply for judicial review of the Assistant Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa." 'Whether the proposed ground of review alleging failure to consider representations about non-refoulement obligations had sufficient merit after Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the only proposed ground of judicial review was bound to fail. In light of Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs, no arguable jurisdictional error arose from the Assistant Minister deciding that it was unnecessary to determine whether non-refoulement obligations were owed to the applicant where the applicant could apply for a protection visa, and the Assistant Minister's reasons showed that he read, identified, understood and evaluated the relevant representations.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs, to be agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The name of the respondent be amended to "Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs".' 'The application for extension of time be dismissed, with costs, to be agreed or assessed.']