WAAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 42; [2002] FCA 207

WAAT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 42; [2002] FCA 207

The notices of appeal were filed out of time and the appellants did not show special reasons warranting an extension. The appeals disclosed no proper ground of appeal and no error in the primary judge's conclusion that the Tribunal had made no reviewable error. Because the appeals lacked sufficient prospects of success, no extension of time should be granted and the appeals were dismissed as incompetent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Migration Protection Visa Judicial Review Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Orders of a Single Judge Dismissing Applications for Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decisions
Outcome
Appeals dismissed as incompetent.
Legal Topics
['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'credibility Findings' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'competency of Appeal']
['migration Law' 'refugee Law' 'administrative Law' 'federal Court Procedure'] ['protection Visas' 'refugee Review Tribunal' 'credibility Findings' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'competency of Appeal']

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 / Full Court Appeal From Orders of a Single Judge Dismissing Applications for Review of Refugee Review Tribunal Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeals were competent when the notices of appeal were filed outside the 21 day period prescribed by Order 52 rule 15(1) of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether an extension of time should be granted under Order 52 rule 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules.' "Whether the primary judge erred in concluding that there was no reviewable error in the Tribunal's reasoning." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider whether the appellants were followers of the Ahmadi faith or were perceived to be such adherents.' 'Whether the Tribunal made an unsupported finding concerning Lashkar-e-Taiba.']

Ratio Decidendi

The notices of appeal were filed out of time and the appellants did not show special reasons warranting an extension. The appeals disclosed no proper ground of appeal and no error in the primary judge's conclusion that the Tribunal had made no reviewable error. Because the appeals lacked sufficient prospects of success, no extension of time should be granted and the appeals were dismissed as incompetent.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed as incompetent.

Orders

  • ['The appeal in W 480 of 2001 be dismissed.' "The appellant in W 480 of 2001 pay the respondent's costs of the appeal including the costs of the notice of motion filed on 4 December 2001." 'The appeal in W 475 of 2001 be dismissed.' "The appellant in W 475 of 2001 pay the respondent's costs of the appeal including...