Shrestha v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The case of Shrestha v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs involves the applicant, Mr Shrestha, who sought judicial review of a decision made by the Tribunal regarding his application for a Medical Treatment (Visitor) visa under the Migration Act 1958. The application was lodged with the Tribunal on 7 May 2018, and it was subsequently dismissed on the basis that it was lodged beyond the prescribed 21-day time limit. Mr Shrestha then filed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision on 10 August 2018, arguing that the Tribunal had made jurisdictional errors and procedural unfairness in its handling of his case. The central legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal erred in determining it lacked jurisdiction and whether it failed to afford Mr Shrestha procedural fairness.

The court noted that the Tribunal had correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because the application for review was lodged outside the 21-day statutory period. This decision was made based on the applicant’s acknowledgment of receiving the decision notification on 13 April 2018, which meant the application for review should have been made by 4 May 2018. The court emphasized that it did not have the jurisdiction to review the merits of the delegate's primary decision, which was based on the applicant’s immigration status and medical evidence. Therefore, the court dismissed the grounds of review pertaining to the primary decision. Regarding the Tribunal's handling of the case, the court found that the Tribunal correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction and did not err in its procedural fairness, as it appropriately communicated the timelines to the applicant and reiterated its lack of authority to extend the time limit.

The court concluded that the Tribunal did not commit any jurisdictional errors or procedural unfairness. As such, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court highlighted that it had no jurisdiction to review the delegate's primary decision and that the Tribunal was correct in finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter due to the late filing of the application for review. The dismissal of the application for judicial review affirmed the Tribunal's decision, and no further appeal was permitted.