DBA16 v Minister for Home Affairs

In the case of DBA16 v Minister for Home Affairs, the applicant, DBA16, sought an extension of time to bring a second application for judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCCA) under section 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The application was made in relation to a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) that had affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa. The applicant's earlier application for judicial review had been dismissed by the FCCA and the appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed on 14 December 2017.

The central issue before the court was whether the FCCA had erred in refusing to extend the time for the applicant to file a second application for judicial review. The court had to consider the approach to be taken in determining whether it was in the interests of justice to extend time and whether the merits of the proposed claim should be considered on a final basis or on an impressionistic level.

The court found that the FCCA had not erred in refusing to extend time for the applicant to file a second application. The court held that the FCCA was correct in considering the merits of the substantive application as relevant to determining whether it was necessary in the administration of justice to make an order extending time. The court agreed with the approach taken by Mortimer J in MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 242 FCR 585, that the threshold for determining whether a claim has reasonable prospects of success is whether the grounds are plainly hopeless on an impressionistic reading and consideration without full argument. The court also noted that it is not appropriate to undertake an exhaustive examination of the merits of the proposed claim as if they had been fully considered, developed, and argued.

The court further held that the principles relating to jurisdictional error have a different application to decisions of inferior courts than they do to administrative decisions. The court referred to the High Court's decision in Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163, which stated that a failure by an inferior court to take into account some matter which it was, as a matter of law, required to take into account in determining a question within jurisdiction or reliance by such a court upon some irrelevant matter upon which it was, as a matter of law, not entitled to rely in determining such a question will not ordinarily involve jurisdictional error.

The court dismissed the application with costs.

Orders:

1. The application is dismissed with costs.