Benrabah v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

BENRABAH
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS & ANOR
[2020] HCASL 227
M76/2020

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Gleeson, Lee and Wheelahan JJ) dismissing an appeal from the decision of the Federal Court of Australia (Steward J) which, in turn, dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to affirm the decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's Class AZ Subclass 866 Protection visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
The applicant advances no question of law sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave and no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's judgment. The applicant requires an extension of time but it would be futile to grant the extension sought. Special leave should be refused.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

G.A.A. Nettle M.M. Gordon

5 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Benrabah v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs involves an applicant who is seeking special leave to appeal a decision made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant's initial application for judicial review, which sought to overturn a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to affirm the cancellation of his visa, was dismissed by the Federal Court. The Full Court subsequently dismissed the applicant's appeal against this decision, prompting the current application for special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The legal issues before the court pertain to the correctness of the Full Court's judgment in dismissing the appeal and the applicant's argument that special leave should be granted based on a question of law or doubt about the correctness of the Full Court's decision. The applicant also seeks an extension of time for his application, though this is not considered by the court as it would be futile.

The court found that the applicant had not advanced any question of law that warranted the grant of special leave, nor had he provided any reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's judgment. The court emphasised that the decision to grant special leave is discretionary and is based on whether the appeal presents a significant question of law of general importance. In this instance, the court determined that such conditions were not met. Consequently, the application for special leave was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to formalise this decision in accordance with the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established