Mu v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an application for judicial review brought by Mu against the Minister for Immigration. The dispute arose from a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to refuse an adjournment application made by Mu. The case was heard by Judge McNab in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal's refusal to grant an adjournment was legally unreasonable. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the exercise of discretionary powers by statutory tribunals, particularly in the context of adjournment applications, and whether the Tribunal's decision fell outside the bounds of what could be considered a reasonable exercise of its power.

Judge McNab applied the principles of legal unreasonableness as summarised in *Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Pandey* [2014] FCA 640, which drew upon High Court authority in *Li* and Full Federal Court authority in *Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh* [2014] FCAFC 1. These principles establish that a discretionary power must be exercised reasonably, and unreasonableness can be inferred if a decision appears arbitrary, capricious, without common sense, or plainly unjust. The Court must examine the reasons provided by the decision-maker for an evident, transparent, and intelligible justification. While a court should not substitute its own view for that of the decision-maker, the standard of legal reasonableness is stringent. The Court noted that a failure to adjourn, which prevents an applicant from presenting their evidence, may constitute a failure to conduct a proper review, although a tribunal is not obliged to afford every opportunity to an applicant to present their best case. The Court then considered whether the Tribunal's refusal in this specific instance met this stringent test of legal reasonableness.