Haider v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The case of Haider v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs involves an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which dismissed an application for re-instatement. The applicant, Haider, sought to re-instate an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal had found that it lacked jurisdiction to review a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant’s sponsor initially made an application for review of the delegate’s decision, and a subsequent application for review was made by the applicant, but this was out of time.

The legal issues before the court included whether the primary judge erred in her characterisation of the application lodged with the Tribunal on 4 September 2018 as an application made by the sponsor, and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a merits review of the delegate’s decision. The court found that the characterisation of the application as made by the sponsor was open to the primary judge and the Tribunal, and thus the primary judge did not err in concluding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the delegate’s decision due to the subsequent application being out of time.

The court held that the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal did not have any reasonable prospects of success. Consequently, the application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed. The Minister sought an order for costs fixed in the sum of $4,000, which the court considered reasonable and proportionate, given it was less than the amount that can be claimed in a short form bill for an application for leave to appeal involving a migration decision.

The court ordered that the respondent’s name be amended to “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs,” the applicant’s application for an extension of time and leave to appeal be dismissed, and the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,000. The entry of orders was governed by Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.