DZX16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 850

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DZX16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 850 Appeal from: Application for an extension of time: DXZ16 & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 2425

File number: QUD 554 of 2017

Judge: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 7 June 2018

Catchwords: MIGRATION – where applicant is a citizen of Papua New Guinea – where applicant lodged a Protection visa application – where a delegate of the Minister refused the Protection visa application – where the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (now the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) for a review of the delegate's decision – where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decided to affirm the delegate's decision – where application for judicial review to the Federal Circuit Court brought significantly out of time – where application for judicial review to the Federal Circuit Court contained an application for extension of time – where primary judge refused the application to extend the time within which to bring the application for judicial review due to no proper explanation for delay and application itself was doomed to fail PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal from orders made by the Federal Circuit Court – where there has been a change in an application for extension of time within which to appeal from orders of the Federal Circuit Court to an application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal – where application for leave to appeal is approximately 12 days out of time – consideration of the factors relevant to whether an extension of time ought to be granted – application of the two-limb test for leave to appeal enunciated in Decor Corporation Pty Ltd and Another v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 – whether there is sufficient doubt attending the primary judge's decision to refuse an adjournment to warrant a grant of leave to appeal – whether applicant would suffer substantial prejudice should leave to appeal be denied and the primary judge's decision stand – where extraordinary delay and lack of an arguable case