Dap17 v Minister for Home Affairs

Dap17 (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs (the respondent) concerning the applicant's visa status. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had the jurisdiction to hear the applicant's review application, specifically whether that application was lodged out of time. The matter came before Kendall J of the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had made a jurisdictional error in accepting the applicant's review application for hearing, given that it was lodged after the prescribed time limit. This required the court to consider the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) concerning the time for lodging applications for review and the circumstances under which an extension of time might be granted.

Kendall J determined that the AAT had indeed made a jurisdictional error. His Honour found that the applicant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the review application, which was a prerequisite for the AAT to exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time. The court applied the principles established in migration law jurisprudence regarding the necessity for a genuine and substantial reason for an out-of-time application to be considered validly.

Consequently, Kendall J ordered that the decision of the AAT be set aside. The matter was remitted to the AAT for determination according to law, with the AAT to reconsider the application for an extension of time.