BHP17 v Minister for Immigration

In BHP17 v Minister for Immigration, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to dismiss their application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The applicant had failed to appear at a scheduled interview with the IAA and had also requested an adjournment of the interview until after the COVID-19 pandemic. The IAA refused the adjournment request and proceeded to dismiss the visa application due to the applicant's non-appearance. The matter came before Judge Street of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the IAA had erred in law by refusing the applicant's request for an adjournment and subsequently dismissing the visa application for non-appearance. This required the Court to consider the scope of the IAA's powers to grant or refuse adjournments and the procedural fairness owed to an applicant in such circumstances, particularly in light of the prevailing pandemic conditions.

Judge Street found that the IAA had not erred in law. The Court reasoned that the IAA had a discretion to grant or refuse an adjournment, and that this discretion had been exercised reasonably in the circumstances. The IAA had considered the applicant's request and the reasons provided, but ultimately determined that the request for an indefinite adjournment until after the pandemic was not justified. The Court affirmed that the IAA was entitled to proceed with the assessment of the application in the absence of the applicant, provided that procedural fairness was afforded. The applicant's failure to attend the interview, without a sufficient basis for an adjournment, led to the lawful dismissal of their visa application.