SZNWJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 497
The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide special reasons explaining the delay, her reasons were not out of the ordinary, and the proposed grounds of appeal disclosed no jurisdictional error or error of law; there were no prospects of success in the appeal.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 21 May 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Decision on Protection Visa Refusal (judicial Review) / Decision on Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal From Federal Magistrate's Decision
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['extension of Time' 'jurisdictional Error' 'refugee Status' 'appellate Procedure']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Decision on Protection Visa Refusal (judicial Review) / Decision on Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal From Federal Magistrate's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the applicant provided special reasons justifying an extension of time to appeal' 'Whether there were any prospects of success in the proposed appeal on grounds of jurisdictional error' "Whether any error of law or jurisdictional error was disclosed in the Tribunal or Federal Magistrate's decision"]
Ratio Decidendi
The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide special reasons explaining the delay, her reasons were not out of the ordinary, and the proposed grounds of appeal disclosed no jurisdictional error or error of law; there were no prospects of success in the appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time dismissed
Orders
- ['The application for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $1,614."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment