CZD18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, CZD18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' refusal to grant a protection visa. The AAT had dismissed the applicant's review application due to his failure to provide an adequate explanation for his non-appearance at the scheduled hearing.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the AAT's decision to proceed with the dismissal of the review application in the applicant's absence, pursuant to section 426A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), constituted a jurisdictional error. This involved determining if the AAT's decision lacked an intelligible justification, was irrational, or legally unreasonable in the circumstances. The court also considered whether the applicant's subsequent failure to respond to an invitation to reinstate his application affected the AAT's original decision.

Dowdy J found that the AAT's decision to proceed in the applicant's absence was not affected by jurisdictional error. The court reasoned that the AAT had provided an intelligible justification for its decision, and it was not irrational or legally unreasonable given the applicant's failure to offer an adequate explanation for his non-appearance. Furthermore, the applicant's subsequent inaction in response to the invitation to reinstate his application did not alter the legality of the AAT's initial determination.

Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.