BXG19 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicants, BXG19 and others, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT had determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the Delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' refusal to grant the applicants Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visas, as their application for review to the AAT was made out of time. The applicants required an extension of time of nearly seven and a half years to lodge their judicial review application in the Federal Court.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the notification letter issued by the Delegate, advising the applicants of the visa refusal and their review rights, complied with the requirements of section 66(2)(d)(ii) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the applicants contended that the letter failed to state the date by which they were required to lodge a valid application for review with the AAT.

Dowdy J found that the delay in the applicants' application to the Court was extreme and lacked a satisfactory explanation. The Court examined the notification letter and concluded that it did comply with section 66(2)(d)(ii) of the Act. The letter clearly stated that the bridging visa would cease 28 calendar days after the applicants were taken to have received the letter, and it also specified the method by which the applicants were taken to have received the letter, thereby implicitly providing the timeframe for review. Consequently, the Court determined that the applicants had no reasonable prospects of success for their proposed substantive ground of jurisdictional error.

The application for an extension of time to lodge the judicial review application was refused.