Devanesan v Minister for Immigration

In *Devanesan v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant sought the reinstatement of his temporary student visa application, which had been dismissed by the Registrar due to the applicant's non-appearance at an initial court date. The applicant, who was unrepresented and whose first language was not English, filed an application seeking reinstatement of the matter.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether an extension of time for filing the reinstatement application was warranted and, consequently, whether the applicant had established an arguable case for judicial review. This required the Court to consider the threshold for establishing an "arguable" ground of review in the context of an application for reinstatement.

Judge A. Kelly applied the principles established in *CAL15* and *Savrimootoo*, which hold that the discretion to reinstate a proceeding is broad. The threshold for an arguable ground of review is not as high as that required for a final hearing; it merely needs to be rational, not fanciful, illogical, impermissible, or devoid of merit. The Court noted that an unrepresented applicant, particularly one for whom English is not their first language, should not be expected to fully develop their grounds of review at this preliminary stage. The applicant's affidavit detailed his genuine intention to study in Australia temporarily, his desire to pursue music therapy and sound engineering, and his belief that relevant information had not been properly considered by the Minister and the Tribunal.

The Court found that the applicant had not established grounds for reinstatement. While acknowledging the applicant's stated intentions and his difficulties, the Court concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate an arguable case for judicial review. Therefore, the application for reinstatement was dismissed.