Akl21 v Minister for Immigration

In *Akl21 v Minister for Immigration*, the applicants challenged a decision by the Minister's delegate to deem their protection visa application invalid. This invalidity was asserted under section 48A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which prevents individuals who have had a protection visa refused or cancelled from making a subsequent application while remaining in Australia. The applicants argued that their earlier protection visa application, lodged in 1999, was invalid because it was not made on the correct version of Form 866 in force at that time, but rather on a later version. Consequently, they contended that section 48A did not preclude their current application.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants' earlier protection visa application was indeed invalid due to the form used. This involved a complex interpretation of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), and relevant provisions of the *Acts Interpretation Act 1901* (Cth) and the *Legislation Act 2003* (Cth), particularly concerning the incorporation of forms by reference and the effect of legislative amendments. The applicants argued that the version of Form 866 used was not validly incorporated into the regulations at the time of their earlier application, rendering that application invalid and thus circumventing the bar imposed by section 48A.

Judge Dowdy rejected the applicants' argument, finding that it had been raised and unsuccessfully argued in numerous previous cases before the Federal Court. The Court determined that there was no jurisdictional error and that the earlier protection visa application was not invalid. The reasoning applied essentially affirmed the established legal position that the applicants' argument regarding the form did not invalidate their prior application. The Court also refused an application for an adjournment made by the applicants on the hearing date, noting they had ample time to secure legal representation.

The Application filed in this Court on 24 November 2017 was dismissed.