CZR20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter concerned an application for review before Egan J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant, CZR20, sought to challenge a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) made on 27 May 2020, which had refused to grant an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for 25 March 2020. The applicant argued that the refusal to grant the adjournment was legally unreasonable, particularly in light of the COVID-19 lockdown then in effect in Victoria and the applicant's own severe mental health conditions.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the AAT's decision to refuse the adjournment request was legally unreasonable, contrary to section 427(1)(b) of the *Migration Act 1948* (Cth). The applicant contended that the AAT failed to adequately consider the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions and the applicant's documented mental health issues, which would have placed him at a substantial disadvantage without legal representation. The applicant specifically pointed to the AAT's assertion that it lacked medical evidence, when in fact, medical reports considered by the original delegate were before the Tribunal.

Egan J found that the AAT's refusal to grant the adjournment was legally unreasonable. The Court noted that the AAT had been informed of the applicant's inability to read or write in either English or Vietnamese, and his mental disorder affecting his memory. Despite these representations, and the fact that the AAT itself later made findings of "very serious mental health conditions" and a "very serious psychiatric condition" in its own reasons, it proceeded with the hearing without adequate consideration of the applicant's disadvantage. The Court accepted the concession made by the first respondent that individuals with severe mental disabilities should be treated differently when requesting adjournments. The Court also acknowledged that the COVID-19 restrictions would have exacerbated the difficulties faced by such individuals.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicant's amended application for review be granted, and the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 27 May 2020 be quashed. A writ of mandamus was issued directing the AAT to determine the application according to law, remitting the matter for a rehearing by a different member. The first respondent was also ordered to pay the applicant's costs.