Chiu v Minister for Home Affairs

Chiu brought an appeal against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court, which found that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear his application for review of the Minister for Home Affairs’ decision because his application was made out of time. The appellant contended that he had not received proper notice of the Minister’s decision in accordance with section 66 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The appellant’s application for review was combined with his mother’s application, and a letter giving notice of the refusal of the visa application was addressed to the appellant’s mother. The central issue for the court to determine was whether the appellant had been sufficiently notified of the Minister’s decision.

The court found that the letter addressed to the appellant’s mother was not sufficient notification under section 66 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) because the appellant had not received the letter himself and was not physically present in Australia at the time of the Minister’s decision. The court held that the appellant was not sufficiently notified of the Minister’s decision, which meant that the 28-day period for lodging an application for review had not begun to run for him. However, the court found that the appellant’s application was still out of time because it was lodged more than a year after the Minister’s decision. The court held that the appellant’s delay in lodging his application for review was unreasonable and that he had not shown any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delay.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that each party bear their own costs in the appeal. The court held that the appellant had not established any grounds for setting aside the decision of the Federal Circuit Court. The court also held that the appellant’s delay in lodging his application for review was unreasonable and that he had not shown any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delay. The court found that the appellant’s argument that he had not received proper notice of the Minister’s decision was not sufficient to excuse his delay in lodging his application for review.