Aryal v Minister for Home Affairs

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to dismiss the applicants' Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 500 visa applications. The AAT had dismissed the applications under s 362B(1A)(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* because the applicants failed to appear for their scheduled hearing to give evidence and present arguments. The applicants subsequently applied for reinstatement of their applications within the prescribed 14-day period.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the AAT had erred in law by refusing to reinstate the applicants' visa applications. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the AAT’s assessment of the applicants' explanation for their non-attendance, which cited technical difficulties with their mobile phone, was reasonable and whether the refusal to reinstate constituted unfair treatment or jurisdictional error.

Justice Kendall found no jurisdictional error on the part of the AAT. The Court noted that the AAT had made multiple attempts to contact the applicants on the day of the hearing via the provided telephone number, but these attempts were unsuccessful. The AAT did not accept the applicants' explanation of technical difficulties, particularly as no alternative contact method was attempted by the applicants on the day of the hearing. The Court concluded that the AAT was entitled to reach this conclusion and that its decision to dismiss the application, and subsequently refuse reinstatement, was within its powers and did not involve an error of law.

The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.