Aciek v Minister for Immigration

Aciek (the applicant) sought an extension of time to apply for judicial review of a notice sent by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) under s 501CA(3) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This notice related to a decision made under s 501(3A) of the Act to cancel the applicant's visa. The application was heard by Judge Manousaridis in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application for judicial review. Further, the court considered whether it was reasonably arguable that the respondent owed the applicant a duty to accord procedural fairness when sending the notice. A key issue was whether the notice was invalid because the tasks prescribed by s 501CA(3) could only be performed by the respondent personally or by a delegate under s 496 of the Act, and the notice was not issued by either. Finally, the court had to assess whether an order extending time was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice under s 477(2) of the Act.

Judge Manousaridis found that an extension of time should be granted. The court reasoned that there was a reasonably arguable case that the person who purported to give the notice under s 501CA(3) did not have the power to do so, as the tasks prescribed by that section were not performed by the respondent personally or by a valid delegate. This raised a significant question about the validity of the notice itself. Given this arguable jurisdictional error, the court concluded that it was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to extend the time for the applicant to seek judicial review. The court ultimately made an order extending time.