Aulakh v Minister for Immigration

Gurinder Kaur Aulakh and Ranbir Singh (the applicants) sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had affirmed the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's refusal to grant them Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas. The application to the Federal Circuit Court was filed approximately five months out of time. The applicants, unrepresented and assisted by an interpreter, contended that their agent failed to inform them of the Tribunal's decision, leading to their late filing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an extension of time for the applicants to file their application for judicial review. This required the court to consider whether it was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make such an order, pursuant to section 477(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The court was required to assess whether there was a reasonable and adequate explanation for the delay, whether the Minister would suffer prejudice, and whether the applicants' substantive case for judicial review was sufficiently arguable.

The court found that the explanation for the delay, namely that the applicants' agent failed to inform them of the Tribunal's decision, was not reasonable or adequate. The court noted that there was no suggestion of fraud by the agent and that the first applicant had not demonstrated sufficient interest in her own application by failing to make her own inquiries with the agent or the Tribunal. Furthermore, under sections 379A and 379G of the *Migration Act*, notification to an authorised representative is generally considered sufficient notification to the applicant. The court also considered the applicants' substantive case, which centred on whether the Tribunal correctly applied the law, and noted the Tribunal's detailed findings regarding the provision of bogus documents and the failure to meet Public Interest Criterion 4020.

The application filed on 4 May 2015 was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $7206.