ASF17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, ASF17, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The dispute concerned whether a decision to refuse to grant ASF17 a protection visa was a "primary decision" for the purposes of review under the Act. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the Minister's decision to refuse ASF17 a protection visa was a "primary decision" as defined by section 476(4) of the Act. This involved considering the definitions of "primary decision," "fast track decision," "fast track applicant," and "unauthorised maritime arrival" within the Act, and whether ASF17 met the criteria for each. Specifically, the court had to ascertain if ASF17's entry into Australia by sea at Christmas Island qualified them as an unauthorised maritime arrival, and subsequently, a fast track applicant.

The court reasoned that ASF17 entered Australia by sea at Christmas Island on 13 July 2013, which is an excised offshore place within the migration zone. This entry occurred after the excision time for Christmas Island, and ASF17 became an unlawful non-citizen as a result of this entry. Furthermore, ASF17 received a written notice under section 46A(2) of the Act on 2 September 2015, which determined that section 46A(1) did not apply to their protection visa application, and they subsequently made a valid application. Based on these facts, the court concluded that ASF17 was a fast track applicant. As a fast track decision is not reviewable under Parts 5 or 7 or section 500 of the Act, the decision to refuse ASF17 a protection visa was not a "primary decision" for the purposes of section 476(4).