Federal Court Rejects Appeal Over Judicial Review Time Extension
📌 In brief
The Federal Court dismissed an appeal challenging a refusal to extend time for judicial review of a migration decision, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Migration Act. This means that the original decision stands, and the claimant cannot proceed with their case beyond this point.
⚖️ Legal holding
An appellant cannot bring an appeal to the Federal Court from an order of the Federal Circuit Court refusing to make or extend an order under section 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
📖 What the law says
The Federal Court does not have the authority to hear appeals from judgments of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) that either make or refuse to make orders under section 477(2) of the Migration Act. Additionally, the Federal Court cannot hear appeals from its own judgments regarding orders or refusals under section 477A(2) of the same act.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a legal practitioner.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court dismissed an appeal challenging a refusal to extend time for judicial review of a migration decision.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court dismissed an appeal challenging a refusal to extend the time for judicial review of a migration decision, citing lack of jurisdiction under s 476A(3) of the Migration Act. The claimant sought an extension but was denied by both the Federal Circuit Court and the Federal Court.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CIP16 v Minister for Immigration and [NAME] Protection [2019] FCA 640 Appeal from: CIP16 v Minister for Immigration and [NAME] Protection [2019] FCCA 17
File number: WAD 59 of 2019
Judge: JACKSON J
Date of judgment: 7 May 2019
Catchwords: MIGRATION - appeal from order of Federal Circuit Court refusing extension of time to apply for judicial review - no jurisdiction for Federal Court to hear appeal
Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24 Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 476A, 477
Cases cited: [NAME] v Minister for Immigration and [NAME] Protection [2017] FCA 1316
Date of hearing: 7 May 2019
Registry: Western Australia
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 11
Counsel for the Appellant: [redacted]
Counsel for the First Respondent: [redacted]
Solicitor for the First Respondent: [redacted]
Counsel for [RESPONDENT] Respondent: [redacted]
ORDERS WAD 59 of 2019
BETWEEN: [APPELLANT]16 Appellant
AND: [APPELLANT] FOR IMMIGRATION AND [NAME] PROTECTION First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL [RESPONDENT] Respondent
JUDGE: JACKSON J DATE OF ORDER: 7 MAY 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal, to be assessed if not agreed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JACKSON J: 1 The appellant is a citizen of Ethiopia who arrived in Australia as the holder of a Prospective Marriage Visa. That visa ceased to be valid on 9 February 2012. On 3 October 2014 the appellant applied for a protection visa, claiming a fear of harm if he were to return to Ethiopia. 2 A delegate of the first respondent (the Minister) refused the application for a protection visa on 19 February 2015. The appellant applied for review of that decision to the Refugee Review Tribunal. That tribunal was abolished with effect from 1 July 2015, and under transitional provisions, the application was taken to have been made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ([NAME]). On 30 June 2016, the [NAME] affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the appellant a protection visa. 3 The appellant applied to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision on 23 August 2016. That was 54 days after the date of the decision. Under s 477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the [NAME]), the application to review the [NAME]'s decision was required to be made within 35 days of the decision. Therefore the appellant needed an extension of time under s 477(2) of the [NAME]. 4 The primary judge heard the application to extend time on 30 May 2018. On 16 January 2019 his Honour ordered that the application for an extension of time in which to file an application for judicial review be dismissed. His Honour also refused an extension of time in which to file an affidavit which the appellant had sworn on 7 May 2018, made an order amending the name of the Minister in the proceedings, and ordered that the appellant pay the Minister's costs in the sum of $5,000. 5 The notice of appeal commencing the present proceedings says that the appellant appeals 'from the whole of the judgment and all of the orders'. The grounds are: '1. wrong decision' and '2. not fair decision'. 6 The Minister has lodged a notice of objection to the competency of the appeal. The basis of the objection is that an appeal may not be brought to this Court from an order of the Federal Circuit Court refusing to make an order extending the period within which an application for judicial review of a migration decision may be made. 7 It is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the order dismissing the application for an extension of time to apply for judicial review to the Federal Circuit Court. The jurisdiction of the Federal Court to hear appeals from decisions of the Federal Circuit Court is found in s 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). However s 476A(3) of the [NAME] relevantly provides: Despite section 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, an appeal may not be brought to the Federal Court from: (a) a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court that makes an order or refuses to make an order under subsection 477(2); … [ADDRESS] has interpreted that provision as excluding its jurisdiction in appeals such as the present proceedings on numerous occasions: see eg [NAME] v Minister for Immigration and [NAME] Protection [2017] FCA 1316 at [3] and the cases cited there. 9 Since this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it would not be appropriate for me to go into the merits of the primary judge's decision not to extend time. I will, however, note that the primary judge gave those merits careful consideration in the reasons for refusing the extension of time, and in the course of that had regard to the underlying merits of the appellant's claim to a protection visa. 10 The other orders from which the appellant seeks to appeal are ancillary to the matter in which the Court has no jurisdiction, so this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal from those orders either. 11 The notice of objection to competency is upheld and the appeal must be dismissed. I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Jackson.
Associate: Dated: 7 May 2019
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Rejects Appeal Against SHEV Refusal Decision
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Rejects Appeal for Safe Haven Visa
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Dismisses Refugee Visa Appeal
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Rejects Claimant’s Appeal Application
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Dismisses Appeal Due to Non-Appearance
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Dismisses Appeal Over Visa Application Review
- Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) Federal Court Dismisses Visa Cancellation Appeal
- Federal Court of Australia Appeal Dismissed: Safe Haven Visa Refusal Upheld by Federal Court
- Federal Court of Australia Protection Visa Appeal Dismissed by Federal Court
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Dismisses Appeal on Procedural Fairness
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Rejects Judicial Review of Migration Decision
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant failed to provide credible and consistent evidence of persecution or fear of persecution in their home country.
- The grounds advanced by the applicant for judicial review lacked sufficient merit.
- The decision-maker did not commit a jurisdictional error if they did not make inquiries that would yield no useful result.
- The appellant's claims, including those related to inconsistencies in evidence, did not establish jurisdictional error or legal unreasonableness.
- A change in hearing date does not breach procedural fairness if it does not prejudice the appellant's ability to present their case.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court dismissed an appeal challenging a refusal to extend time for judicial review of a migration decision.
Who was involved?
A claimant and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection were involved in this case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that it lacked jurisdiction under s 476A(3) of the Migration Act to hear appeals from orders refusing extensions of time for judicial review.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically ss 476A and 477, were applied in this case.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The central reasoning was based on the lack of jurisdiction under s 476A(3) to hear appeals from orders refusing extensions of time for judicial review.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant, as their appeal was dismissed.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation would likely face the same outcome if they attempt to bring an appeal under these circumstances.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment did not specify any particular evidence or documents that were critical to the decision.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
A decision like this can generally be appealed, but in this case, the Federal Court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear such an appeal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving migration and judicial review procedures.
