DUL17 v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned a judicial review application brought by the applicant against the Minister for Immigration, seeking to quash a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the applicant's application for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) because the applicant failed to appear at a scheduled hearing. The applicant was notified of this dismissal and advised of a 14-day period within which to seek reinstatement, a period which expired without such an application being made. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed its dismissal decision.

The applicant sought to quash the Tribunal's decision on grounds of jurisdictional error, alleging the Tribunal wrongly applied the law by misinterpreting the "real chance" test and failing to properly consider his situation regarding a risk of significant harm if returned to Malaysia. The applicant also contended that the Tribunal treated his case unfairly. The Minister argued for dismissal of the application, asserting that the grounds were impermissible merits review, lacked particularisation, and that the Tribunal's decisions were made within its powers under section 426A of the Act, meaning it was not required to consider the merits of the protection claims or apply the "real chance" test.

The Court found that the applicant's grounds of review were not particularised and appeared to seek a merits review of the Tribunal's decision, which is impermissible in judicial review. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application under section 426A(1A)(b) of the Act, due to the applicant's failure to attend the hearing, was a valid exercise of its power. As the applicant did not apply for reinstatement within the prescribed 14-day period, the Tribunal was not required to consider the substantive merits of his protection claims, including the "real chance" test or the risk of significant harm.

The Court ordered that the judicial review application be dismissed.