Hao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1341

Hao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1341

The central reason for dismissal was that the applicant did not satisfy criterion 3001 of Schedule 3 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which required his application to be made within 28 days of ceasing to hold a substantive visa. The applicant applied four years after the relevant day. There was no evidence to support the alleged denial of procedural fairness. As such, the primary judge's decision was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application by Federal Circuit Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'medical Treatment Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'schedule 3 Criteria' 'criterion 3001']
['practice and Procedure' 'migration' 'administrative Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'medical Treatment Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'schedule 3 Criteria' 'criterion 3001']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application by Federal Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the decision of the primary judge dismissing the judicial review application was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the applicant did not satisfy criterion 3001 of Schedule 3 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)' 'Whether the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness']

Ratio Decidendi

The central reason for dismissal was that the applicant did not satisfy criterion 3001 of Schedule 3 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which required his application to be made within 28 days of ceasing to hold a substantive visa. The applicant applied four years after the relevant day. There was no evidence to support the alleged denial of procedural fairness. As such, the primary judge's decision was not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal, filed on 7 March 2018, be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application, as agreed or assessed."]