Devanesan v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1366

Devanesan v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1366

The applicant did not provide evidence or a sufficient explanation for the 55 day delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. His proposed grounds were unparticularised assertions that did not engage with the primary judgment or demonstrate error in dismissing the reinstatement application. Because the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit and did not satisfy the test for leave to appeal, the Court refused to extend time and dismissed the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Federal Court Hearing of Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.
Legal Topics
['student Visa Refusal' 'judicial Review' 'reinstatement Application' 'extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Civil Procedure'] ['student Visa Refusal' 'judicial Review' 'reinstatement Application' 'extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' '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 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 From an Interlocutory Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Federal Court Hearing of Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal filed 55 days out of time.' 'Whether the delay was satisfactorily explained by lack of legal support, COVID-19 impacts, or asserted mental instability.' 'Whether the proposed grounds of appeal had sufficient merit to warrant an extension of time or leave to appeal.' 'Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the Federal Circuit Court judgment and substantial injustice if leave were refused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not provide evidence or a sufficient explanation for the 55 day delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. His proposed grounds were unparticularised assertions that did not engage with the primary judgment or demonstrate error in dismissing the reinstatement application. Because the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit and did not satisfy the test for leave to appeal, the Court refused to extend time and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.

Orders

  • ['The name of the first respondent be amended to "Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs".' 'The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed."]