SZSGD v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1277

SZSGD v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1277

The extension of time and leave to appeal were refused because the 26-day delay was not satisfactorily explained by evidence, the applicant had not complied with opportunities and directions to provide supporting material, and the proposed appeal grounds had no substance and could not establish sufficient doubt, substantial injustice, or jurisdictional error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Migration/protection Visa Judicial Review Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decisions
Outcome
The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'failure to Appear' 'bias' 'interpreter Error']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['protection Visa' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'failure to Appear' 'bias' 'interpreter Error']

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

Migration/protection Visa Judicial Review Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal.' "Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Circuit Court's dismissal for non-appearance and refusal to set aside that dismissal." 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit, including alleged Tribunal bias, merits review complaints and alleged interpreter errors.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time and leave to appeal were refused because the 26-day delay was not satisfactorily explained by evidence, the applicant had not complied with opportunities and directions to provide supporting material, and the proposed appeal grounds had no substance and could not establish sufficient doubt, substantial injustice, or jurisdictional error.

Court Disposition

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs." 'The name of the first respondent be changed to "Minister for Immigration and Boarder Protection".']