EQL17 v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

The applicant, EQL17, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to dismiss their application for a Protection visa. The IAA's decision was based on the applicant's failure to appear at a scheduled interview, which led to the dismissal of their application for an extension of time to provide further information. The matter came before Judge Street of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the IAA had erred in law by dismissing the applicant's request for an extension of time without affording them an opportunity to be heard, particularly given the applicant's non-appearance. This raised questions about the procedural fairness obligations of the IAA when dealing with applications for extensions of time, and whether such applications are distinct from the substantive assessment of a protection visa application.

Judge Street found that the IAA's decision to dismiss the application for an extension of time for non-appearance, without providing the applicant with notice of the intention to do so or an opportunity to explain their absence, constituted a failure to accord procedural fairness. The Court reasoned that an application for an extension of time, even if made on the basis of non-appearance, is a procedural step that requires consideration and that a decision to refuse such an application should not be made without affording the applicant a chance to be heard on the reasons for their non-appearance. The Court distinguished this from a situation where an applicant has definitively abandoned their claim.

The Court made orders setting aside the IAA's decision and remitting the matter to the IAA for redetermination according to law.