MZZFQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1133

MZZFQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1133

The extension of time was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate merit in the proposed appeal ground. His claims before the Tribunal concerning road travel focused on the danger he would face travelling between Kabul and Ghazni to see his family, on the basis that his family would not travel to Kabul because it was too dangerous. The asserted claim that his fear arose because his family would travel from Ghazni to Kabul was not how the claim was presented, and the Tribunal in any event addressed travel risks to both the applicant and his family.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application for an extension of time dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'failure to Deal With an Integer of a Claim' 'procedural Fairness']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['protection Visa' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'failure to Deal With an Integer of a Claim' 'procedural Fairness']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.' "Whether the proposed appeal ground had merit on the basis that the Tribunal failed to deal with an integer of the applicant's claim concerning risk to children and/or women without a male protector travelling on roads in Afghanistan."]

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate merit in the proposed appeal ground. His claims before the Tribunal concerning road travel focused on the danger he would face travelling between Kabul and Ghazni to see his family, on the basis that his family would not travel to Kabul because it was too dangerous. The asserted claim that his fear arose because his family would travel from Ghazni to Kabul was not how the claim was presented, and the Tribunal in any event addressed travel risks to both the applicant and his family.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application." 'The name of the second respondent be changed to Administrative Appeals Tribunal.']