Dhi18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)

In *Dhi18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)*, Egan J of the Federal Court of Australia considered an application for reinstatement of a proceeding that had been dismissed in the applicant's absence. The applicant sought to have the dismissal set aside and the matter reinstated for final hearing, having filed an amended application for review raising grounds of jurisdictional error by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA).

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to exercise its discretion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing the proceeding and reinstate the matter. This required the Court to consider the principles governing such applications, specifically whether there was a reasonable excuse for the applicant's absence from the original hearing, the potential prejudice to the respondent from reinstatement, and whether the applicant had a reasonably arguable prospect of success on the substantive application. The applicant's grounds of review alleged that the IAA erred by failing to accept his submission that he was scared to disclose his association with LTTE members until 2012, and by failing to adequately consider claims that suggested Sri Lankan authorities were searching for him and potentially posed a risk to his life.

Egan J applied the principles established in *BYF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* and *MZYEZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship*, which require consideration of three factors: a reasonable excuse for absence, prejudice to the other party, and a reasonably arguable prospect of success. The applicant provided an affidavit detailing his confusion regarding the court date and time, including misplacing correspondence and a misunderstanding of the scheduled time, which he argued constituted a reasonable excuse for his absence. The Court also considered the applicant's amended grounds of review, which alleged that the IAA had failed to properly assess the credibility of his fear of disclosure due to his association with LTTE members and had not adequately considered evidence that suggested he was being sought by Sri Lankan authorities.

The Court ordered that the lawyers for the first respondent prepare a Court Book containing all relevant material before the Authority, and adjourned the matter for final hearing to 23 August 2021. Leave was granted to the applicant to file an Amended Application for Review.