Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 231

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 231

The applicant failed to articulate any basis upon which the decision below was incorrect or establish jurisdictional error. No error was identified in the primary Judge's reasoning process. Therefore, extension of time and leave to appeal would be futile and the application should be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Sukhjinder Singh; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Migration Law Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Judicial Review 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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhjinder Singh

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time and leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the applicant identified any viable grounds of appeal or jurisdictional error
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was afforded by the Tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to articulate any basis upon which the decision below was incorrect or establish jurisdictional error. No error was identified in the primary Judge's reasoning process. Therefore, extension of time and leave to appeal would be futile and the application should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application filed on 30 August 2016 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, such costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.