BHG22 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerns an application by BHG22 (the applicant) for an extension of time to seek judicial review of decisions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal had dismissed the applicant's application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Court was required to determine whether an extension of time should be granted for the applicant to seek judicial review of the Tribunal's decisions.

The Court considered the application for an extension of time, the affidavit of the applicant, the Court Book, and the Minister's written submissions. The Court noted that the applicant had not been able to access their emails and, as such, had not received the Minister's submissions. However, the Court was satisfied that the applicant had been properly served with the Minister's submissions. The Court also noted that the application for an extension of time to seek judicial review filed by the applicant only sought relief by way of an order quashing the Tribunal's decision. It did not seek a writ of mandamus that the matter be remitted. As such, this Court's jurisdiction under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was not properly invoked. The Court explained this oversight to the applicant and made an order amending the application for judicial review to include the seeking of a writ of mandamus.

The Court concluded that an extension of time should not be granted. The Court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to justify an extension of time. The Court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that they had a valid reason for the delay in seeking judicial review. The Court noted that the Tribunal had dismissed the applicant's application for review of the decisions made by the delegate of the Minister, and that the applicant had not sought review of the Non-Appearance Decision. Rather, they had only asked for a review of the Confirmation Decision. The Court explained to the applicant why this was an issue and, with their consent, made an order amending the application for judicial review to also include the seeking of review of the Non-Appearance Decision.

The Court dismissed the application for an extension of time. The Court noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to justify an extension of time. The Court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated that they had a valid reason for the delay in seeking judicial review. The Court noted that the Tribunal had dismissed the applicant's application for review of the decisions made by the delegate of the Minister, and that the applicant had not sought review of the Non-Appearance Decision. The Court explained to the applicant why this was an issue and, with their consent, made an order amending the application for judicial review to also include the seeking of review of the Non-Appearance Decision.