Aln19 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, Aln19, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' refusal to grant Aln19 a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa. Aln19 had lodged an application for merits review with the AAT outside the time prescribed by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Aln19 contended that the notification letter received from the Delegate, which advised of the visa refusal and review rights, was unclear, confusing, and ambiguous, and therefore failed to comply with the requirements of s 66(2)(d)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The central legal issue before the court was whether the notification letter provided to Aln19 was sufficiently clear and unambiguous to satisfy the requirements of s 66(2)(d)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), thereby validating the time limits for seeking merits review. This involved an interpretation of the language used in the letter, particularly the phrase "may not," in the context of the statutory requirements for advising applicants of their review rights.

Dowdy J found that the notification letter was clear and that any perceived complexity in its content was a necessary consequence of complying with the comprehensive requirements of s 66(2)(d)(i)–(iv) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The court determined that the collocation "may not" in the notification letter, when considered within its context and circumstances, unambiguously meant "must not." Consequently, the notification letter was held to have validly complied with s 66(2)(d)(ii). As no jurisdictional error was established, the application for judicial review was dismissed.