CFW17 v Minister for Immigration

[2018] FCCA 519

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CFW17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2018] FCCA 519

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Judicial review – protection visa application – applicant argued that the Minister failed to consider readily available and centrally relevant information – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Cases cited:

CFT17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 513

Applicant: CFW17

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: DNG 17 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Young

Hearing date: 9 February 2018

Date of Last Submission: 9 February 2018

Delivered at: Darwin

Delivered on: 9 February 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Nguyen

Solicitors for the Applicant: Robert Welfare & Associates

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr Liveris

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. That an extension of time be granted to 25 May 2017.

2. That the application filed 25 May 2017 is dismissed.

3. That the Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in the sum of $7,328.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

DNG 17 of 2017

CFW17

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex-Tempore

1. These reasons for judgment were delivered orally. They have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.

2. I will refuse leave to rely on that affidavit for the reasons I gave in the related matter of CFT17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2018] FCCA 513. Otherwise I note the application is no longer pressed. Accordingly I propose to dismiss the application.

3. On the question of extension of time, the reasons and considerations are largely the same except in the previous matter I found the application was meritorious. In my view the same remarks can be made in relation to the application for an extension of time in this matter, with the exception of the question of merit.

4. The applicant sought legal advice within time. He appears to have been given legal advice within time and he was referred to Mr Welfare’s practice in December 2016. For reasons that I consider inadequately explained, the application was not made until May 2017. I can see that considerable effort was involved between January and March 2017 in obtaining an affidavit from Ms Sebban which I have refused leave to rely on. In my view that was a misdirected and wasted effort. It has quite unnecessarily delayed the application. Then an application for legal aid was refused. Nevertheless, an application was made in May. It seems to me that all the explanation for the delay rests largely with the applicant’s lawyers. Given that he sought and obtained legal advice within time and was referred to lawyers, apparently shortly out of time, I am very reluctant to visit the consequence of his lawyers’ delay on him, considering that it is not in issue that he does not speak English, he is Vietnamese and he was in detention.

5. I am very reluctant to refuse to extend the time when he has apparently done everything that was reasonably expected of him. The responsibility for the delay as far as I can see rests almost entirely with his lawyers. So, I extend time but dismiss the application.

I certify that the preceding five (5) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Young

Associate: 

Date:  6 March 2018