SZRGG v Minister for Immigration [2013] FCA 169

SZRGG v Minister for Immigration [2013] FCA 169

The application for extension of time was refused because there was no error disclosed in the Federal Magistrate’s or Tribunal’s approach, the applicant had no prospects of success on appeal, and the explanation for delay was insufficient to overcome the lack of merit.

Parties
Applicant: SZRGG; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Second Respondent: Refugee Review Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (judicial Review, Migration) / Judgment on Extension of Time Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Migration Protection Visas, Procedural Fairness, Jurisdictional Error, Appointment of Litigation Representative
Administrative Law Migration Law Judicial Review Extension of Time to Appeal Migration Protection Visas Procedural Fairness Jurisdictional Error Appointment of Litigation Representative

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

SZRGG

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

First Respondent

Refugee Review Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (judicial Review, Migration) / Judgment on Extension of Time Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether there are prospects of success in the proposed appeal
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider persecution claims or jurisdictional errors

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because there was no error disclosed in the Federal Magistrate’s or Tribunal’s approach, the applicant had no prospects of success on appeal, and the explanation for delay was insufficient to overcome the lack of merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's father appointed as litigation representative pursuant to rules 9.61 and 9.66 of the Federal Court Rules
  • The application filed on 28 November 2012 is dismissed