FPK18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

In the matter of FPK18, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal the decision of the Federal Circuit Court which had dismissed their application for judicial review. The applicant's application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa was affirmed by the Immigration Assessment Authority, following a delegate's decision to refuse the application. The applicant proposed new grounds for appeal, including whether the Secretary failed to comply with section 473CB of the Migration Act 1958 by not considering or providing material relating to discussions between delegates and whether the Authority was prevented from conducting its review under Part 7AA of the Act, establishing a jurisdictional error.

The court considered the purpose of the obligation to provide review material to the Authority, which is to ensure that the Authority has and examines the same information that was before the Minister when making the referred decision. The Secretary provided material to the Authority under section 473CB, as inferred from the delegate's letter and the Authority's reasons. The Authority received the SHEV application, statement of claims, evidence relating to the applicant's arrival interview, the transcript of the interview, country information, and media articles. The Authority addressed the circumstances in which the delegate considered the information from the discussion with the second delegate. The Authority summarised the applicant's evidence and noted inconsistencies between the evidence in the statement of claims and the interview. The Authority also referred to media articles and adverse country information.

The court found that there was no real prospect of success for the proposed grounds of appeal, as the Secretary provided the relevant material to the Authority and the Authority considered it. Additionally, the applicant failed to provide evidence that certain alleged material existed. The court also found that it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time where the proposed ground of appeal had no real prospect of success.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time, with the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs to be taxed if not agreed. This decision was based on the lack of a real prospect of success for the proposed grounds of appeal, and the absence of evidence for certain alleged material. Furthermore, the court found that it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time under these circumstances.