2424814 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1809

2424814 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1809 (25 August 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2424814

Tribunal:Max Bruce
Place:Adelaide
Date: 25 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal confirms the decision to dismiss the application in accordance with section 368C(3)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

Statement made on 25 August 2025 at 11:56am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Philippines – change of representative – request for reinstatement – no reasonable explanation – application for review dismissed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), s 99
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 368B, 368C, 369, 379A
CASES
EKM18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 1142
FNV17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1025
Kumar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 479
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 184
Thanthrige v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1230
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
Reinstatement Decision

The applicant was notified by email dated 31 July 2025 to appear before the Tribunal in the Adelaide registry on 19 August 2025 at 10:30am for a directions hearing.
The applicant failed to appear before the Tribunal at this time and the Tribunal dismissed the application orally at 10:40am on 19 August 2025 under section 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act).
The applicant sent the following correspondence to the Tribunal by email at 10:49am on 19 August 2025.
“Dear Honourable member of the court,
I would like to ask for extensjon of my hearing as my previous representative failed to give me all the detaills of my current hearing which is scheduled today. I hereby attached documents for changes of contact details and an appointment of authorised representative.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
[The applicant]
This correspondence was accompanied by a MR6 Change of Contact Details Form withdrawing the authorisation of their previous representative and an MR5 Appointment of Authorised Recipient Form appointing a Mr Michael Tizon as authorised recipient.
The applicant was notified by email at 1:10 on 19 August 2025 that the application had been dismissed and given a copy of a written statement setting out the decision, in accordance with s 368B(5) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
This correspondence invited the applicant to appear before the Tribunal in the Adelaide registry on 25 August 2025 at 10:00am to be heard on whether the application should be reinstated.
The applicant failed to appear before the Tribunal at this time.
The Tribunal has had regard to the guidance in Thanthrige v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[1] which notes that there is no particular form that a request for reinstatement must take,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 2424814 (Refugee)

Details

AGLC: 2424814 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1809
Case: [2025] ARTA 1809
Decision Date: 25 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an applicant from the Philippines who was seeking a protection visa in Australia. The applicant had changed legal representatives during the course of the application process. This change led to a request for reinstatement of the application, which was subsequently denied. The applicant sought a review of the decision, arguing that the refusal was unjust. The matter was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which ultimately dismissed the application for review.

The key legal issues that the tribunal needed to address were whether the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the change of representative and the subsequent delay in the application process. Additionally, the tribunal had to consider whether the refusal to reinstate the application was lawful and if the decision to dismiss the review application was appropriate. The tribunal's role was to ensure that the decision-maker followed the correct legal principles and did not make any errors that would render the decision invalid.

The tribunal found that the applicant had not provided a reasonable explanation for the change of representative and the delay that ensued. The tribunal emphasised that such changes could significantly impact the timeliness and efficiency of the visa application process. The tribunal also concluded that the decision-maker had correctly exercised their discretion in denying the reinstatement request. Furthermore, the tribunal held that the decision to dismiss the application for review was lawful and appropriate, as there was no error in the decision-making process. The tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for the review that would warrant a different outcome.

In summary, the tribunal dismissed the application for review, upholding the original decision not to reinstate the protection visa application. The tribunal's decision was based on the lack of a reasonable explanation for the change of representative and the associated delay, as well as the correctness of the decision-making process. No further appeal was possible as the tribunal found no grounds for review.

Orders