BFD19 v Minister for Home Affairs

BFD19 sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant an extension of time to make a submission in response to a notice issued under s 501G(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act). The applicant had been notified that their protection visa application was being considered for refusal on character grounds, and was given a period to provide a 'show cause' response. The applicant failed to provide this response within the stipulated time and sought an extension, which was refused by the delegate of the Minister. The matter came before Driver J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the extension of time was affected by jurisdictional error. This involved determining whether the delegate had properly considered the relevant factors under s 501G(2) of the Act when assessing the application for an extension, and whether the delegate's reasoning for refusing the extension was illogical or irrational. The Court also considered whether the delegate's decision was vitiated by a failure to afford the applicant procedural fairness.

Driver J found that the delegate had failed to properly consider the applicant's reasons for seeking an extension of time, particularly in relation to the applicant's mental health and the difficulties they faced in obtaining legal advice. The Court held that the delegate's decision was based on an erroneous understanding of the applicant's submissions and that the refusal of the extension was therefore unreasonable and irrational, constituting jurisdictional error. The Court concluded that the delegate had not afforded the applicant procedural fairness by failing to genuinely consider their explanation for the delay.

The Court made orders quashing the delegate's decision to refuse the extension of time and remitted the application for an extension of time to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.