Herring v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 970

Herring v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 970

No question of law of substance or merit is raised by the applicant; the application for extension of time is refused because the applicant has not provided any satisfactory explanation for the very substantial delay (over six years) and raises no arguable legal ground for appeal; all issues of fairness, including those raised in the Ombudsman’s report, were fully ventilated before the Tribunal, and there is no basis for further delay or adjournment.

Parties
Applicant: Keith David Herring; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time (related to Migration/tribunal Review) / Decision on Application for Extension of Time and Associated Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, Tribunal Review, Deportation
Migration Law Administrative Law Extension of Time Procedural Fairness Natural Justice Tribunal Review Deportation

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith David Herring

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time (related to Migration/tribunal Review) / Decision on Application for Extension of Time and Associated Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a question of law justifying an extension of time to appeal the 2006 AAT decision affirming cancellation of visa under s 501 Migration Act
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness/natural justice was denied to the applicant
  3. 3 Whether any explanation exists for the six-year delay in seeking leave to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

No question of law of substance or merit is raised by the applicant; the application for extension of time is refused because the applicant has not provided any satisfactory explanation for the very substantial delay (over six years) and raises no arguable legal ground for appeal; all issues of fairness, including those raised in the Ombudsman’s report, were fully ventilated before the Tribunal, and there is no basis for further delay or adjournment.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for an extension of time is refused.
  • The Applicant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent.