SZWBZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 222

SZWBZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 222

The application for an extension of time was refused because the delay of about three months after the prescribed date was not sufficiently explained and the proposed appeal was barely arguable, with virtually no prospects of success. The Tribunal had relevantly considered the applicant's claimed inability to obtain a fishing pass and had findings open to it that he was not at risk of harm from the EPDP and could earn income otherwise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time in Which to Appeal Against a Judgment and Orders of the Federal Circuit Court / Federal Court Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'sri Lankan Tamil Asylum Seeker' 'complementary Protection']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'protection Visa' 'jurisdictional Error' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'sri Lankan Tamil Asylum Seeker' 'complementary Protection']

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 Extension of Time in Which to Appeal Against a Judgment and Orders of the Federal Circuit Court / Federal Court Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to appeal from the Federal Circuit Court judgment.' 'Whether the proposed grounds of appeal disclosed any viable basis for appeal.' "Whether the applicant's inability to obtain a fishing pass was a matter not properly considered by the Tribunal and could amount to persecution or serious harm." 'Whether the delay in commencing the appeal was sufficiently explained.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because the delay of about three months after the prescribed date was not sufficiently explained and the proposed appeal was barely arguable, with virtually no prospects of success. The Tribunal had relevantly considered the applicant's claimed inability to obtain a fishing pass and had findings open to it that he was not at risk of harm from the EPDP and could earn income otherwise.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time be refused.']