Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1529

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1529

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the determinative consideration was that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. The Tribunal had considered the applicant's statutory declaration and his asserted inability to obtain assistance from his former employer, so the proposed ground alleged only disagreement with the weight given to those matters, which did not disclose jurisdictional error. Granting an extension would therefore be futile.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Migration; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Review
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'reasonable Prospects of Success' 'jurisdictional Error' 'public Interest Criterion 4020' 'bogus Document' 'skilled (residence) (class Vb) Visa']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'reasonable Prospects of Success' 'jurisdictional Error' 'public Interest Criterion 4020' 'bogus Document' 'skilled (residence) (class Vb) Visa']

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 to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From a Decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Dismissing an Application for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court decision.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had reasonable prospects of success.' "Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant's asserted prejudice arising from delay and inability to obtain evidence from his former employer." "Whether the applicant's complaints identified jurisdictional error or merely challenged the weight given by the Tribunal to evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the determinative consideration was that the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. The Tribunal had considered the applicant's statutory declaration and his asserted inability to obtain assistance from his former employer, so the proposed ground alleged only disagreement with the weight given to those matters, which did not disclose jurisdictional error. Granting an extension would therefore be futile.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an extension of time is dismissed." "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of that application."]