BXT18 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, BXT18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which confirmed the dismissal of their application for a protection visa. The Tribunal had initially dismissed the application under section 426A(1A)(b) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. The applicant was notified of this dismissal and the requirement to apply for reinstatement within 14 days, a step they did not take. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the dismissal decision.

The central legal issue before Judge Kendall was whether the Tribunal's decision to confirm the dismissal of the protection visa application constituted a jurisdictional error. The applicant's initial application for judicial review lacked specific grounds, but the Court, noting the applicant's status and recent Federal Court remarks, provided an opportunity for the applicant to orally explain any perceived errors. The Court clarified that its focus was limited to identifying jurisdictional error, which can arise in various forms, including the decision-maker identifying the wrong issue, ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, failing to consider a claim or a component of a claim, failing to follow mandatory procedures, exhibiting bias, or making an illogical, irrational, or unreasonable decision.

The Court reasoned that the Tribunal had followed the mandatory procedures outlined in the Act. The applicant was notified of the dismissal, informed of the reasons, and advised of the 14-day period for seeking reinstatement. The applicant's failure to apply for reinstatement within this timeframe meant that, under section 426B(5) of the Act, the dismissal decision was automatically confirmed. As no jurisdictional error was identified in the Tribunal's adherence to these procedural requirements, the Court found no basis to set aside the Tribunal's decision.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.