EOD17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, EOD17, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The application for judicial review was lodged eight minutes late, and subsequently dismissed for non-appearance. The applicant then applied for reinstatement of the dismissed application. The matter came before Judge A Kelly in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the applicant's application for reinstatement of the judicial review proceedings. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the exercise of discretion to reinstate a proceeding, particularly in circumstances where the initial application was dismissed for non-appearance and lodged late. The Court also had to assess whether the grounds of review proposed by the applicant were "arguable" to a sufficient degree to warrant reinstatement.

The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *CAL15* and *MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, which hold that an application for reinstatement does not require the Court to be satisfied of the grounds of review to the same level as a final hearing. Instead, the threshold is whether the grounds of review are "arguable," meaning they are not fanciful, illogical, or devoid of merit, but possess a level of rationality and a basis in the material sufficient for the Court to hear full argument. The Court noted that this assessment is evaluative and discretionary, guided by the principles in *House v The King*. The Minister conceded that the applicant had a reasonable excuse for the delay and that there would be no prejudice from reinstatement. The Court considered the applicant's proposed amended grounds of review, which alleged that the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) failed in its duty to consider the applicant's claims in accordance with procedural fairness, particularly concerning adverse credibility findings made by the IAA. The Court found that the applicant's proposed grounds of review, particularly regarding the IAA's treatment of the applicant's credibility, were arguable.

The Court allowed the application for reinstatement, ordering that the dismissed application be reinstated.