Guo v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 61

Guo v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 61

As there is no statutory discretion either for the decision-maker or for the Court to extend the 28-day period for application for a subclass 602 medical treatment visa, and the applicant did not apply within the prescribed time, the application must fail and the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.

Parties
Applicant: Liangkang Guo; First Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Medical Treatment Visa, Extension of Time, Statutory Interpretation
Migration Law Administrative Law Medical Treatment Visa Extension of Time Statutory Interpretation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liangkang Guo

Applicant

Minister for Home Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant is entitled to an extension of time to appeal the Federal Circuit Court's decision dismissing review of a refusal to grant medical treatment visa
  2. 2 Whether there is any discretion to extend time to apply for medical treatment visa beyond 28 days after last substantive visa
  3. 3 Whether compelling circumstances could be considered

Ratio Decidendi

As there is no statutory discretion either for the decision-maker or for the Court to extend the 28-day period for application for a subclass 602 medical treatment visa, and the applicant did not apply within the prescribed time, the application must fail and the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs to be assessed if not agreed.