Anam v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1022

Anam v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1022

The applicant did not demonstrate an arguable case that the primary judge erred. There was evidence before the Tribunal capable of supporting the finding that the bank statement was a bogus document, and PIC 4020(1) did not require proof of intention. The application for extension of time was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: MD Khairul Anam; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Application for Student Visa, Public Interest Criterion 4020, Bogus Documents, Extension of Time, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Immigration Law Application for Student Visa Public Interest Criterion 4020 Bogus Documents Extension of Time Judicial Review

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD Khairul Anam

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Circuit Court erred in affirming the Tribunal's finding that the bank statement was a bogus document

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not demonstrate an arguable case that the primary judge erred. There was evidence before the Tribunal capable of supporting the finding that the bank statement was a bogus document, and PIC 4020(1) did not require proof of intention. The application for extension of time was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the first respondent to be fixed at $4,800.00.