Gunaden v Minister for Home Affairs

The plaintiff sought orders in the nature of certiorari and mandamus against the Minister for Home Affairs, seeking to quash a delegate's decision of 30 January 2018 to refuse a Training visa and to compel the Minister to determine the application according to law. The Minister sought dismissal of the application, arguing it was filed outside the time limits prescribed by section 486A(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and relevant High Court Rules. The plaintiff requested an extension of time to file the application.

The High Court was required to determine whether it was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to grant an extension of time for the plaintiff to file her application for an order to show cause. This involved considering the plaintiff's grounds for seeking relief, which alleged jurisdictional error in the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that the decision was vitiated because the employer's sponsorship application had not been determined, or alternatively, that the visa application should have been deemed invalid for the same reason.

The Court reasoned that neither of the plaintiff's grounds for alleging jurisdictional error had any arguable basis. The Court explained that while an approved sponsor is a primary criterion for granting a Training visa, it is not a jurisdictional fact that must be determined before the Minister can consider the application. If other criteria are not met, the Minister can refuse the visa. In this instance, the plaintiff failed to satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4005 by not providing requested further information, including medical assessments, within the specified time. The fact that the sponsor's application was not yet determined did not invalidate the delegate's decision to refuse the visa on these grounds. Furthermore, the Court found that the delay in filing the application was substantial and the explanation provided was unsatisfactory, particularly the lack of inquiry regarding the visa application status for an eight-month period.

Consequently, the Court was not satisfied that it was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to extend the time for filing the application. The plaintiff's application for an extension of time was refused, and her application for an order to show cause was dismissed pursuant to rule 25.09.1 of the High Court Rules, with the plaintiff ordered to pay the defendant's costs.