Axd15 v Minister for Immigration

[2018] FCCA 3731

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AXD15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION [2018] FCCA 3731

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for a Protection visa – application to extend time under s 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) –whether the application was made in valid form – no sufficiently arguable case of jurisdictional error made out – application for an extension of time dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.48A, 477

Cases cited:

BVJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCA 1205

Applicant: AXD15

Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

File Number: SYG 776 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 20 July 2018

Date of Last Submission: 20 July 2018

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 20 July 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr O Jones

Solicitors for the Applicant: Firmstone & Associates

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms D Watson
Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The interlocutory application be heard concurrently with the interlocutory application SYG 760 of 2018.

2. The application for an extension of time under s 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $1,350.00.

DATE OF ORDER: 20 July 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 776 of 2017

AXD15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Court made an order for the concurrent hearing of two applications for an extension of time under s 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) in circumstances where the issue raised in each matter involved an argument as to the invalidity of the form 866 and that the applicant is not prevented from lodging a further protection visa application because of s 48A of the Act.

2. This Court is bound by the decision of Burley J in BVJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCA 1205. As a result of that decision I find that the form in each case was a valid form. I also accept the argument advanced, in matter SYG 760 of 2018, in that the argument faced a further difficulty by reason of an amendment to the Regulation.

3. It is not necessary for the Court to address the facts in relation to the case as in each instance it is conceded that the arguments lack sufficient merit to make it necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to extend time under s 477 of the Act. That concession was properly made on behalf of the applicant in each case.

4. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is not necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to extend time under s 477 of the Act as there was insufficient merit to warrant such an extension.

I certify that the preceding four (4) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Date: 21 December 2018