Boddu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1340

Boddu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1340

Leave to appeal was refused because, although substantial injustice would be suffered if the judgment below were assumed to be wrong, there was no sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the Federal Circuit Court decision. The applicant had not applied for an AFP check before lodging the visa application as required by cl 485.213, later applying for the check could not satisfy that mandatory criterion, and the refusal of an adjournment did not deny procedural fairness because the applicant had ample opportunity to obtain legal advice and to make submissions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Migration Judicial Review Application at a Show Cause Hearing
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['subclass 485 Visa' 'australian Federal Police Check Requirement' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'natural Justice' 'federal Circuit Court Show Cause Hearing']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'procedural Fairness'] ['subclass 485 Visa' 'australian Federal Police Check Requirement' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'adjournment' 'natural Justice' 'federal Circuit Court Show Cause Hearing']

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 Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Dismissal of Migration Judicial Review Application at a Show Cause Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Circuit Court decision dismissing the applicant's judicial review application." 'Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness or natural justice by refusal of an adjournment to obtain legal advice.' 'Whether the applicant was given a proper opportunity to be heard in the Federal Circuit Court.' 'Whether cl 485.213 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) was misconstrued or misapplied where the applicant applied for an Australian Federal Police check only after lodging the visa application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because, although substantial injustice would be suffered if the judgment below were assumed to be wrong, there was no sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the Federal Circuit Court decision. The applicant had not applied for an AFP check before lodging the visa application as required by cl 485.213, later applying for the check could not satisfy that mandatory criterion, and the refusal of an adjournment did not deny procedural fairness because the applicant had ample opportunity to obtain legal advice and to make submissions.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs as agreed or assessed.']