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

In *Pop v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)*, Judge Egan of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered an application for review concerning a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in relation to an Aged Parent (Residence) (Class BP) visa. The applicant had experienced substantial delays in the processing of his visa application, which had been lodged in 2007. The core of the dispute involved the AAT's refusal to grant an extension of time for the applicant to provide requested documents, specifically confirmation of his Assurance of Support.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the AAT's decision to refuse an extension of time was legally unreasonable and whether this refusal constituted jurisdictional error. The applicant had sought an extension due to delays in obtaining information from Centrelink regarding his Assurance of Support application. The AAT, in a letter dated 31 January 2019, requested specific documentation regarding the Assurance of Support lodgement and progress, stipulating that this information be provided by close of business on the same day, failing which a decision would be made on the available information.

The Court found that the AAT's requirement for the applicant to provide specific documentation by close of business on 31 January 2019, without clearly stating it was a directive from the Tribunal Member, was problematic. This urgent requirement, issued by a Tribunal Services Officer, was not explicitly authorised by the Member. Despite the applicant's representative asserting that the required documents were provided on 31 January 2019, and evidence supporting the lodgement of the Assurance of Support application on 14 December 2018 with an estimated completion date of 14 April 2019, the AAT proceeded to make a decision. The Court concluded that the AAT's handling of the extension request and the subsequent decision, given the significant prior delays and the circumstances surrounding the documentation, amounted to jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the Court quashed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.