Ewo20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

Case

[2021] FCCA 250

15 February 2021


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
EWO20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 250 [2021] FCCA 250 15 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 28 September 2020, wherein the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because the applicant's review application was not received within the prescribed time limit. The applicant had applied for a protection visa on 24 March 2016, which was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 17 March 2020. The applicant subsequently applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision on 4 September 2020.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction due to the late lodgement of the applicant's review application. This involved considering the prescribed time limit for lodging such applications and the date on which the applicant was deemed to have been notified of the delegate's decision.

Driver J applied the principles established in *DZAFH v Minister for Immigration* [2017] FCCA 387, which held that the 28-day period for lodging a review application under rule 4.31(2) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* commences on, and includes, the day the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision. The delegate's decision was emailed to the applicant on 18 March 2020, meaning that date was considered the notification date. Consequently, the last day for lodging the review application was 14 April 2020. As the applicant's application was received on 4 September 2020, it was lodged significantly out of time, and the Tribunal correctly concluded it had no jurisdiction.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Immigration

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

12

Statutory Material Cited

0