FHO17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 242

FHO17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 242

The grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success as no jurisdictional error was demonstrated in the Tribunal's or the FCCA judge's decision; accordingly, the application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: FHO17; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Protection Visas, Jurisdictional Error

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FHO17

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time for leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether proposed grounds of appeal disclose any jurisdictional error or merit
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in concluding Australia did not have protection obligations to applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds of appeal had no reasonable prospect of success as no jurisdictional error was demonstrated in the Tribunal's or the FCCA judge's decision; accordingly, the application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application.