FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BWI18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 290
Appeal from: Application for Extension of Time: BWI18 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 1769 File number: NSD 1196 of 2019 Judge: FLICK J Date of judgment: 11 March 2020 Catchwords: MIGRATION – protection visa refused – reviewed by Tribunal – second application for review – no jurisdiction for Tribunal to undertake second review
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for extension of time – extension requested short – but no prospects of success – extension refused
Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 338, 347, 348, 349, 411
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 36.03, 36.05
Cases cited: BUD17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCAFC 140, 264 FCR 134
NAPF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 117
SZASP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 771
SZBWJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1175, (2008) 171 FCR 299
Date of hearing: 5 February 2020 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 20 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr N Swan Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs ORDERS
NSD 1196 of 2019 BETWEEN: BWI18
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 MARCH 2020
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Application for an extension of time in which to appeal is refused.
2.The proceeding is dismissed.
3.The Applicant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent, either as agreed or assessed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FLICK J:
The Applicant in the present proceeding, identified by the pseudonym BWI18, is a citizen of Malaysia who arrived in Australia in October 2016 on a visitor visa.
He applied for a protection visa in January 2017 but, on 31 March 2017, a delegate of the Minister refused that application. The Applicant then applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) for review of that decision. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision on 2 February 2018 and notified the Applicant of that decision by way of a letter dated 6 February 2018.
In March 2018 the Applicant lodged a further application for review with the Tribunal. The decision sought to be reviewed was identified as a “[v]isa refusal” and the date of the decision was identified as “6/02/2018”. On 13 March 2018 the Tribunal published its Statement of Decision and Reasons, finding that it did not have jurisdiction to review the delegate’s decision a second time. Those reasons relevantly concluded:
3.The Tribunal notes that the applicant previously sought review of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read BWI18 v Minister for Home Affairs and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] FCA 290
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to review the February 2018 decision a second time and whether the application for an extension of time should be granted. The court found that there was no self-evident legal error in the February 2018 decision and that the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to review the earlier decision twice. The court also found that the application for an extension of time should be refused as any appeal had no prospects of success.
The court emphasised that BWI18's difficulties with understanding the Australian legal system and the language barrier did not provide a basis for granting the extension of time. The court held that the application for an extension of time should be refused and that the proceeding should be dismissed. The court further held that BWI18 should pay the costs of the First Respondent, either as agreed or assessed.
The court made three orders. Firstly, the application for an extension of time in which to appeal was refused. Secondly, the proceeding was dismissed. Thirdly, BWI18 was to pay the costs of the First Respondent, either as agreed or assessed. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Application for an extension of time in which to appeal is refused.
2. The proceeding is dismissed.
3. The Applicant is to pay the costs of the First Respondent, either as agreed or assessed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.