AUJ19 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

In the matter of AUJ19 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Federal Court of Australia considered an application for the reinstatement of an application for judicial review. The applicant, a Malaysian citizen, had applied for a Protection (subclass 866) visa as a dependent of her then husband, who had also applied for the same visa. The application for judicial review was dismissed for non-appearance at the hearing, and the current application seeks reinstatement on the basis of a reasonable excuse for that non-appearance and any associated delay. The court had to determine whether the applicant had provided a reasonable excuse for both the non-appearance and the delay in seeking reinstatement, and whether there were reasonably arguable grounds of review.

The court found that the applicant had not provided a reasonable excuse for her non-appearance at the hearing or for the delay in bringing the application for reinstatement. The applicant cited personal circumstances, including her separation from her husband, her subsequent marriage, and the care of her child, as reasons for her absence. However, the court was not satisfied that these circumstances constituted a reasonable excuse for failing to appear at the hearing, particularly as the applicant had been provided with multiple opportunities to provide evidence and arguments in writing and had not done so. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that she had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the delay in bringing the application for reinstatement.

The court concluded that the applicant had not established a reasonable excuse for the non-appearance or the delay in bringing the application for reinstatement. Further, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that there were reasonably arguable grounds of review. The application for reinstatement was dismissed.

The court ordered that the application for reinstatement of the application for judicial review be dismissed. The applicant was not granted leave to reinstate the application, and the original decision to dismiss the application for judicial review was upheld.