BMG19 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, BMG19, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear an application for review of a protection visa refusal. The Minister for Home Affairs was the respondent. The core of the dispute concerned the adequacy of the notification provided to the applicant regarding the time limit for lodging an application for review with the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the notification of the decision to refuse the protection visa was effective, and consequently, whether the Tribunal had erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the terms of the notification letter clearly informed the applicant of the period within which an application for review could be made to the Tribunal, as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and its Regulations.

The Court applied section 412 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which mandates that an application for review must be given to the Tribunal within 28 days of notification of the decision. Regulation 4.31(2) further clarifies this period for applicants not in immigration detention. The Court relied on the binding precedent of *DFQ17 v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection* [2019] FCAFC 64, which held that a notification must be clear in stating the time within which an application for review can be made. In this case, the notification letter stated that the timeframe commenced on the day the applicant was taken to have been notified and ended 28 days later. The Court found this wording to be clear and not "piecemeal, entirely obscure and essentially incomprehensible" as in *DFQ17*. Unlike *DFQ17*, the applicant was emailed the decision, and the letter advised that receipt was taken at the end of the day it was sent, removing the need for complex calculations regarding notification.

The Court concluded that the notification provided to the applicant was clear and complied with the statutory requirements. Therefore, the Tribunal had not erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction because the application for review was not lodged within the prescribed timeframe. The application for judicial review was dismissed.