Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Masood v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1026 Appeal from: Application for extension of time: Masood v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2017] FCCA 3085
File number: NSD 2156 of 2017
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 11 May 2018
Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for extension of time to appeal – whether proposed appeal meritorious
Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 499 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Sch 2, cll 572.223 (repealed), 572.227 (repealed)
Date of hearing: 11 May 2018
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 27
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr J Pinder of Minter Ellison
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting appearance
ORDERS NSD 2156 of 2017
BETWEEN: FOWAD MASOOD Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent
JUDGE: YATES J DATE OF ORDER: 11 MAY 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an extension of time filed on 6 December 2017 be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
YATES J:
Introduction 1 The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal from a judgment given by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the Federal Circuit Court) on 13 November 2017, which dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal's decision affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister), not to grant the applicant a temporary student visa. 2 The Minister accepts that the delay in filing a notice of appeal is short (two days) and that the applicant has provided a sufficient explanation for that delay. Further, the Minister does not contend that he would be prejudiced by the grant of an extension of time, other than in respect of costs. The Minister submitted, however, that the grounds of appeal proposed by the applicant are so lacking in merit that the extension of time should not be granted.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate