BHT18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)

The applicants, BHT18 and others, sought judicial review of the respondent Minister's decision to reject their purported fresh application for a protection visa. The applicants had previously had a protection visa application refused. Their subsequent attempt to lodge a fresh application was rejected by the Minister, who did not consent to the application being made. The matter came before Judge Driver of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants' purported fresh application for a protection visa was validly made, and consequently, whether there was any arguable basis for judicial review of the Minister's decision to reject it. The Court was required to consider the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and associated regulations concerning the lodgement of fresh protection visa applications, particularly where the Minister's consent is required.

Judge Driver determined that the applicants' purported fresh application was not a valid application under the *Migration Act* because it was made without the Minister's consent, as required by the relevant legislative provisions. Consequently, the Minister's rejection of this invalid application did not give rise to a decision that could be judicially reviewed. The Court found that there was no real prospect of the application for judicial review succeeding and therefore dismissed the applicants' application pursuant to rule 13.10(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). The first and fifth applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.