Dhillon v Minister for Immigration

In *Dhillon v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to refuse an extension of time to lodge a substantive application for review of a student visa refusal. The applicant had lodged the application for an extension of time significantly out of time, although the delay was described as minimal.

The central legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had erred in law by refusing to grant the applicant an extension of time to lodge their substantive application. This required the court to consider the principles governing the exercise of the AAT's discretion to grant extensions of time, particularly in circumstances where the substantive application itself lacked merit.

Justice Kendall found that the AAT had not erred in law. The Tribunal was entitled to consider the merits of the substantive application when deciding whether to grant an extension of time. In this instance, the AAT had correctly identified that the substantive application had no prospect of success, and therefore, it was open to the Tribunal to refuse the extension of time on that basis, notwithstanding the minimal delay. The court affirmed that an extension of time is a discretionary power that should not be exercised in favour of an applicant whose case is demonstrably without merit.