Sheng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs

This case concerned an application for judicial review brought by the applicants against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs, following a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicants sought review of the AAT's decision to affirm the refusal of their visa application. The central dispute revolved around whether the AAT had afforded the applicants procedural fairness, particularly in relation to an invitation to comment on information that was likely to lead to the affirmation of the original decision.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the AAT had committed jurisdictional error by failing to provide procedural fairness to the applicants. Specifically, the applicants argued that they had not received crucial correspondence from the AAT, including an invitation to comment and notification of a hearing, due to the negligence of their migration agent. They contended that the AAT erred in proceeding to make a decision without their input, despite their attempts to seek an extension of time to respond and their claims of not speaking English and being unrepresented.

Kendall J reasoned that the AAT's finding that it had notified the applicants at the email address provided on their application form was central to its decision to proceed without further comment or a hearing. The AAT relied on sections 359A, 359B(4), 359C, 360(3), and 363A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to conclude that it had no power to extend the time for the applicants to provide information and that they were not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The Court noted that the applicants had sought an extension of time, citing their lack of English proficiency, unrepresented status, and inability to obtain relevant documents, but the AAT found that it had no power to grant such an extension. The AAT ultimately affirmed the visa refusal based on the materials before it, finding that the requirements of clause 186.223 of the *Migration Regulations* were not met.