Migdadi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 928

Migdadi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 928

The extension of time was granted because the two day delay did not significantly weigh against the self-represented applicant, but leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds was reasonably arguable. The proposed grounds either sought impermissible merits review of the Tribunal's factual and credit findings, identified no error in the application of the statutory definition of spouse, or failed to show any misapplication of FCCR r 44.12 by the primary judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal Under R 44.12 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (cth)
Outcome
Application for extension of time allowed; application for leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['partner (temporary) (class Uk) Visa' 'spousal Relationship Criteria' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (cth) R 44.12']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['partner (temporary) (class Uk) Visa' 'spousal Relationship Criteria' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (cth) R 44.12']

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 and Leave to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal Under R 44.12 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory decision dismissing the judicial review application as raising no arguable case for relief.' 'Whether the proposed grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable.' 'Whether the Tribunal or primary judge erred in relation to the definition of spouse and the genuineness of the marital relationship.' 'Whether the primary judge misapplied FCCR r 44.12.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was granted because the two day delay did not significantly weigh against the self-represented applicant, but leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds was reasonably arguable. The proposed grounds either sought impermissible merits review of the Tribunal's factual and credit findings, identified no error in the application of the statutory definition of spouse, or failed to show any misapplication of FCCR r 44.12 by the primary judge.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time allowed; application for leave to appeal refused; applicant ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal is allowed.' 'The application for leave to appeal be refused.' "The Applicant pay the First Respondent's costs."]