AKC17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Ors

The plaintiff, a citizen of Sri Lanka, sought judicial review in the High Court of Australia of the decision by an officer of the Department of Home Affairs not to refer his request for ministerial intervention under section 48B of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to the Minister. The plaintiff's prior applications for a Safe Haven Enterprise Class visa and subsequent appeals had been unsuccessful, with his special leave application to the High Court being refused. The plaintiff had requested the Minister to intervene under section 48B to allow him to lodge a further visa application, but this request was refused by the Department, stating it did not meet the Minister's Guidelines.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a constitutional or other writ, specifically concerning the Department's handling of his request for ministerial intervention under section 48B of the *Migration Act*. This involved determining the scope and effect of the Minister's power under section 48B, which allows the Minister to exempt a person from the general prohibition on making further visa applications after a refusal. The plaintiff contended that the officer's failure to refer his request to the Minister was reviewable.

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that it did not disclose an arguable basis for relief. The Court noted that the power conferred by section 48B is non-compellable and must be exercised by the Minister personally, as previously considered by the High Court in *S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship*. The Court observed that the plaintiff's grounds for relief were substantially identical to those raised in numerous previous applications that had been repeatedly dismissed by the Court. Consequently, the Court applied the same reasoning as in those prior decisions to reject the current application. The plaintiff's application was dismissed with costs pursuant to rule 25.09.1 of the *High Court Rules 2004* (Cth).