Sohal v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time to apply for writs of certiorari and mandamus, brought by Mr S.S. Sohal against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Mr Sohal, an Indian citizen who had been in Australia on student visas since 2009, sought to quash a judgment of Justice Beach of the Federal Court and compel the Minister to reassess his visa application. The dispute arose from the refusal of Mr Sohal's application for a further Subclass 572 visa, based on a finding that he had failed to substantially comply with visa condition 8202 by not being enrolled in a course between August 2011 and July 2012. This decision had been affirmed by the Migration Review Tribunal, dismissed on judicial review by the Federal Circuit Court, and an appeal to the Federal Court had also been dismissed.

The High Court was required to determine whether Mr Sohal had demonstrated an arguable ground for the grant of certiorari or mandamus, and whether there was sufficient reason to grant an extension of time for his application, which was significantly out of time. Mr Sohal's grounds for relief included allegations that the delegate had misused section 65 of the Migration Act by not allowing him to comment on exceptional circumstances beyond his control, and that mandamus was available to compel the exercise of powers. He also submitted that he had since mended his ways, completed further studies, and was now a diligent student, seeking a further opportunity to meet visa requirements.

The Court found that Mr Sohal's application for an extension of time was substantially out of time, with no adequate explanation provided for the delay beyond exhausting his appeal rights. Crucially, the Court determined that the application did not disclose an arguable ground for certiorari or mandamus. Mr Sohal's oral submissions regarding his changed circumstances and improved academic record, while noted, could not be addressed by the Court, as such matters were within the Minister's discretion. The Court concluded that Mr Sohal had not advanced sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the previous decisions, and that his application lacked prospects of success.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the application for an extension of time be dismissed with costs.