Sadruga v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCAFC 219

Sadruga v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCAFC 219

No arguable error identified in the primary judge’s reasons for dismissing the original application for judicial review, nor any error apparent. The matters raised by the applicant go to the merits and do not provide grounds for an appeal. Extension of time refused as no utility shown in granting it and sufficient time had been afforded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Full Court Appeal; Determination of Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed with costs; name of first respondent amended
Legal Topics
['partner Visas' 'character Test' 'extension of Time' 'adjournment' 'judicial Review']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['partner Visas' 'character Test' 'extension of Time' 'adjournment' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Full Court Appeal; Determination of Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the application for extension of time to appeal from the primary judge’s decision should be granted' 'Whether there is any arguable error in the primary judge’s reasons for dismissing the applicant’s judicial review application' 'Whether the Tribunal erred in considering the character test and other relevant factors for refusing the applicant’s visa' 'Whether refusal to adjourn to obtain legal advice was appropriate']

Ratio Decidendi

No arguable error identified in the primary judge’s reasons for dismissing the original application for judicial review, nor any error apparent. The matters raised by the applicant go to the merits and do not provide grounds for an appeal. Extension of time refused as no utility shown in granting it and sufficient time had been afforded.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed with costs; name of first respondent amended

Orders

  • ["The name of the first respondent be amended to 'Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs'." 'The application for an extension of time be dismissed with costs.']