SQNR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 925

SQNR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 925

The application for extension of time to appeal lacks merit as the grounds for appeal advanced by the applicant have already been properly considered and dismissed in earlier proceedings, and there is no error in the approach taken by the previous judge or the Tribunal. The data breach and other arguments raised do not provide a basis for appeal. The interlocutory application is refused as consequence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; interlocutory application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'visa Cancellation' 'judicial Review' 'non Refoulement Obligations' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law' 'immigration Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'visa Cancellation' 'judicial Review' 'non Refoulement Obligations' '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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether grounds for extension of time to appeal are satisfied' "Whether judicial review grounds regarding Tribunal's handling of evidence, rehabilitation, non-refoulement, negative impact assessment, procedural fairness, medical issues, and data breach are valid"]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time to appeal lacks merit as the grounds for appeal advanced by the applicant have already been properly considered and dismissed in earlier proceedings, and there is no error in the approach taken by the previous judge or the Tribunal. The data breach and other arguments raised do not provide a basis for appeal. The interlocutory application is refused as consequence.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; interlocutory application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time within which to appeal from the orders made by Justice Tracey on 10 October 2014 is refused.' 'The interlocutory application filed by the applicant on 17 June 2016 is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application as agreed or taxed."]