Legal Research
Cases
CZG17 v Minister for Immigration

CZG17 v Minister for Immigration

Case [2018] FCCA 859 16 April 2018

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CZG17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2018] FCCA 859

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Substantive application seeking review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision – Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to review the delegate’s decision – whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness.

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application for an extension of time to make a competent application to the Court – factors considered – no satisfactory explanation for the delay – no reasonable prospects of success – application refused.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.66, 412, 438, 476, 477, 494B, 494C

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg.4.31

Cases cited:

SZRIQ v Federal Magistrates Court of Australia [2013] FCA 1284; (2013) 236 FCR 442
SZUWX v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 77; (2016) 238 FCR 456
MZZLD v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1201; (2016) 154 ALD 315
MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 110; (2016) 152 ALD 478
Ahmed v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 751 and SZTES v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 158 Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344

Applicant:

CZG17

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 2104 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Nicholls

Hearing date:

9 March 2018

Date of Last Submission:

9 March 2018

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

16 April 2018

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr S Hodges of Hodges Legal

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Mr J Pinder of Minter Ellison Lawyers

ORDERS

The application for an extension of time made on 3 July 2016 pursuant to s.477(2) of Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $5,600.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2104 of 2017

CZG17

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application made…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading CZG17 v Minister for Immigration

Details

AGLC: CZG17 v Minister for Immigration [2018] FCCA 859
Case: [2018] FCCA 859
Decision Date: 16 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, CZG17, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT had determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration. The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant had been denied procedural fairness in relation to the delegate's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the AAT erred in finding that it did not have jurisdiction to review the delegate's decision, specifically in light of allegations that the applicant was denied procedural fairness. Ancillary to this, the Court also considered an application by the applicant for an extension of time to make a competent application to the Court.

In its reasoning, the Court noted that the application for an extension of time was refused because there was no satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in lodging the application and, furthermore, the applicant had no reasonable prospects of success on the substantive merits of the case. Consequently, the Court did not proceed to consider the merits of the judicial review application.

The Court ordered that the application for an extension of time be refused.

Orders