CNU16 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, CNU16, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for a delay in filing his application for judicial review. The matter was heard by Judge Howard.

The court was required to determine if the applicant's stated reasons for not filing his application within the prescribed time limit constituted a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Specifically, the court considered the applicant's claims that he did not check his email, that he only discovered the Tribunal's decision late through contact with the Department, and that he did not understand the process of judicial review.

Judge Howard found the applicant's explanation for not checking his email to be lacking in credibility, noting that the applicant had previously requested the Tribunal to contact him via email and had used email for his reinstatement application. The court also considered the applicant's assertion that he only learned of the decision two weeks before the time limit expired and did not understand judicial review. The court referred to established case law, including *Vu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* and other decisions, which hold that pursuing ministerial intervention as a "Plan A" and judicial review as a "Plan B" does not constitute a satisfactory explanation for delay. The court concluded that the applicant's explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory.