Akbar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs
Case
•
[2021] FCCA 82
•29 January 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Akbar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 82
[2021] FCCA 82
29 January 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned an application for judicial review of decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning an employer nomination application. The applicants, M.A Alawdeen and Mohammed Akbar, sought review of the AAT's decision to dismiss their application and subsequently confirm that dismissal. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs was the respondent.
The primary legal issues before the Federal Court were whether the AAT had committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the applicants' employer nomination application and confirming that dismissal. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the AAT had erred in law by dismissing the application due to the applicants' failure to attend a scheduled hearing, and whether the applicants' failure to provide requested information by a specified deadline, or to request an extension of time by that deadline, had divested the AAT of its power to permit attendance at a hearing.
Justice Kendall reasoned that the applicants' failure to provide the requested information by 14 October 2019, and their failure to request an extension of time by that date, meant that the Tribunal had no power to extend the time for response. This failure, pursuant to sections 359B(4), 359C, 360(3), and 363A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), resulted in the applicants losing any entitlement to appear before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal was obliged to determine the application on the papers and had no power to permit the applicants to attend a hearing. The Court found that the applicants' grounds of review did not establish jurisdictional error, and their disagreement with the outcome did not amount to such error.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
The primary legal issues before the Federal Court were whether the AAT had committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the applicants' employer nomination application and confirming that dismissal. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the AAT had erred in law by dismissing the application due to the applicants' failure to attend a scheduled hearing, and whether the applicants' failure to provide requested information by a specified deadline, or to request an extension of time by that deadline, had divested the AAT of its power to permit attendance at a hearing.
Justice Kendall reasoned that the applicants' failure to provide the requested information by 14 October 2019, and their failure to request an extension of time by that date, meant that the Tribunal had no power to extend the time for response. This failure, pursuant to sections 359B(4), 359C, 360(3), and 363A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), resulted in the applicants losing any entitlement to appear before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal was obliged to determine the application on the papers and had no power to permit the applicants to attend a hearing. The Court found that the applicants' grounds of review did not establish jurisdictional error, and their disagreement with the outcome did not amount to such error.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
ABF24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 347
Cases Citing This Decision
2
O'Keeffe v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1515
ABF24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC2G 347
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
2
Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection
[2019] FCA 600
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales
[2010] HCA 1