Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 427

Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 427

Ms Kaur failed to raise any proper or reasonable grounds for appeal, nor did she provide an adequate explanation for the delay. There was no error of law or denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal or the primary judge, and the findings concerning waiver of Schedule 3 criteria and PIC 4020 were open on the evidence. The application for an extension of time must therefore be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Paramjeet Kaur; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (migration Judicial Review) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed. Costs ordered against Ms Kaur.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Visa Refusal, PIC 4020, Schedule 3 Criteria, Practice and Procedure
Administrative Law Migration Law Judicial Review Extension of Time Procedural Fairness Visa Refusal PIC 4020 Schedule 3 Criteria +1 more

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

Parties

Paramjeet Kaur

Appellant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (migration Judicial Review) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time to file an appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the proposed grounds of appeal have sufficient merit
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was afforded in the Circuit Court hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Kaur failed to raise any proper or reasonable grounds for appeal, nor did she provide an adequate explanation for the delay. There was no error of law or denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal or the primary judge, and the findings concerning waiver of Schedule 3 criteria and PIC 4020 were open on the evidence. The application for an extension of time must therefore be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed. Costs ordered against Ms Kaur.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for an extension of time filed 25 May 2017 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of $2,500.