FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Kim v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 281 DAE-JUNG KIM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS NSD 2631 OF 2005 WILCOX J 9 MARCH 2006 SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2631 OF 2005 BETWEEN: DAE-JUNG KIM APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: WILCOX J DATE OF ORDER: 9 MARCH 2006 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for an extension of time to appeal be dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 2631 OF 2005 BETWEEN: DAE-JUNG KIM APPLICANT AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS RESPONDENT JUDGE: WILCOX J DATE: 9 MARCH 2006 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WILCOX J: 1 This is an application for an extension of time to appeal against a judgment given by Federal Magistrate Nicholls on 25 November 2005. The application for an extension of time was filed on 23 December 2005. This means it was only a few days late. Consequently, if it was apparent that there was a fairly arguable case I would unhesitatingly extend time. To the contrary, it is clear from the reasons for decision of the Magistrate that the appeal is futile. The facts before the Migration Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal') were that the employer who had previously nominated the applicant had failed to secure approval by a delegate of the Minister, and on appeal against that decision, by the Tribunal. 2 It is true that the applicant had in mind another employer but this employer had not been approved and was not the subject of the application now under appeal. The structure of the regulations is such that without an approved employer, the relevant visa could not have been granted. 3 There are other aspects of the matter which are discussed in the Magistrate's reasons which I need not go into. It seems obvious to me that the Tribunal had no option other than to refuse the application and consequently there is no point in the matter occupying any further time in this Court. 4 I dismiss the application for extension of time with costs. I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Wilcox. Associate: Dated: 22 March 2006 Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr D Knaggs of Cross Law Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms A Alex of Phillips Fox Date of Hearing: 9 March 2006 Date of Judgment: 9 March 2006