WZAVL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 334

WZAVL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 334

The applicant provided no sufficient explanation for the delay of nearly four months in filing the appeal, as the evidence indicated he had the capacity to act but elected instead to pursue Ministerial intervention. The proposed grounds of appeal are vague or unmeritorious and do not disclose jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal or primary judge. Accordingly, the application for extension of time to appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: WZAVL; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Refugee Status Determination, Judicial Review, Protection Visa, Ministerial Intervention
Administrative Law Migration Law Human Rights Extension of Time to Appeal Refugee Status Determination Judicial Review Protection Visa Ministerial Intervention

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WZAVL

Applicant

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the explanation for delay in filing an appeal is adequate
  2. 2 Whether the proposed appeal has reasonable prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether jurisdictional error was made by the Tribunal or primary judge

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant provided no sufficient explanation for the delay of nearly four months in filing the appeal, as the evidence indicated he had the capacity to act but elected instead to pursue Ministerial intervention. The proposed grounds of appeal are vague or unmeritorious and do not disclose jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal or primary judge. Accordingly, the application for extension of time to appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed.