Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 157

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 157 File number: VID 1239 of 2018

Judge: O'CALLAGHAN J

Date of judgment: 7 February 2019

Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for an extension of time – application refused

Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

Cases cited: Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Anor [2018] FCCA 2448

Date of hearing: 7 February 2019

Registry: Victoria

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 24

Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr Cunynghame of Sparke Helmore

ORDERS VID 1239 of 2018

BETWEEN: JATIN KUMAR Applicant

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGE: O'CALLAGHAN J DATE OF ORDER: 7 FEBRUARY 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for extension of time be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs to be agreed or assessed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Revised from transcript)

O'CALLAGHAN J: 1 These reasons for judgment were made ex tempore at the hearing on 7 February 2018 and accompany the orders set out above. 2 On 27 September 2018 the applicant filed an application in this court for an extension of time within which to appeal from the judgment and orders of a judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, (the Federal Circuit Court), made on 5 September 2018 and published as Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Anor [2018] FCCA 2448. The applicant had been required by rule 36.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to file and serve a notice of appeal by 26 September 2018, being 21 days after the date when the judgment and orders of the primary judge had pronounced the orders. The applicant was required to file and serve written submissions by 24 January 2019, but has not done so. 3 At the commencement of the hearing this morning I asked the applicant, who appeared without the benefit of a legal representative, whether he wished to say anything in support of his application. The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing of this application in order to permit him to retain a lawyer. I declined to grant that application because the applicant had only approached a lawyer with a view to assisting him in that regard yesterday. Having declined that application I afforded the applicant an opportunity to say anything in substance about his application, but he declined to do so.