ARYAL v Minister for Immigration

In ARYAL v Minister for Immigration, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Tribunal affirming a delegate's refusal to grant a student visa. The applicant had previously completed several courses in Australia since 2008, but the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to remain in Australia temporarily. The application for judicial review was initially dismissed for non-appearance, and the applicant subsequently applied for reinstatement of that application.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had demonstrated that the grounds for judicial review were "arguable" to warrant the reinstatement of the dismissed application. This involved considering the threshold for an arguable ground of review, which requires it to be more than fanciful, illogical, or devoid of merit, possessing a level of rationality and a basis in the material before the Court. The Court also had to determine whether the applicant's explanation for his non-appearance at the directions hearing was adequate.

The Court applied the principles established in cases such as MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Savrimootoo v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which hold that the discretion to reinstate a proceeding is broad. The assessment of whether a ground of review is arguable is evaluative. The Court found that the applicant's explanation for his failure to attend the directions hearing, despite receiving notice and understanding that default orders could be made, was inadequate. The applicant's stated unfamiliarity with the Australian legal system and misunderstanding of the notice were not considered sufficient to excuse his non-attendance.

Consequently, the application for reinstatement was dismissed.