Ahmad & Anor v The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

This matter concerned an application for constitutional writs and related relief filed in the High Court of Australia by the plaintiffs, who are citizens of India and husband and wife. The plaintiffs sought to quash a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) affirming a delegate's refusal to grant them Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas, and to prevent the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection from relying on that decision. The application was made out of time, and the plaintiffs sought an enlargement of time.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether an extension of time should be granted for the plaintiffs to seek judicial review of the MRT's decision, and whether the MRT's decision, or subsequent decisions by the Federal Circuit Court and Federal Court, contained jurisdictional error. The plaintiffs' substantive claim was that the MRT erred in finding that the first plaintiff did not satisfy the English language proficiency requirement for the visa. This requirement was a prerequisite for the second plaintiff to be granted the visa as a member of the family unit.

The High Court refused the application for an enlargement of time and dismissed the plaintiffs' application for an order to show cause. The Court reasoned that the application was filed approximately two years and five months out of time, and that it was not in the interests of the administration of justice to extend this period. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had previously sought judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court, which refused an extension of time due to the significant delay and lack of merit in the substantive application. This decision was upheld by the Federal Court. The High Court found that the plaintiffs' application to it did not disclose any arguable ground for relief, sought to relitigate matters already determined by the lower courts, and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any adequate reason for the delay. Consequently, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the first defendant's costs.