Somba and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for the reinstatement of an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant, an Indonesian citizen, had his visa mandatorily cancelled following convictions for robbery and assault offences. He sought revocation of the cancellation, but this was refused by the delegate. The Applicant then lodged an application for review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The legal issues before the court were whether the Applicant's failure to attend the hearing of his substantive application before the AAT was adequately explained, and if so, whether the application for reinstatement should be granted. The court was required to consider the Applicant's conduct in prosecuting his application generally, the fairness and equity of the situation, the potential prejudice to the parties, the public interest, and the merits of the substantive application, including whether it had any reasonable prospects of success.

The court reasoned that the Applicant's explanation for his absence, citing a severe migraine and the effects of sleeping pills taken due to stress, was not entirely convincing, particularly in light of evidence suggesting he refused to be transported and speak to the Tribunal. Furthermore, the court noted that the Applicant had voluntarily left Australia and returned to Indonesia, which raised questions about his continued commitment to pursuing the review. The court ultimately found that the Applicant's explanation for his non-attendance was insufficient to warrant reinstatement, and that the substantive application lacked reasonable prospects of success, rendering the reinstatement application futile.

The application for reinstatement of the substantive application was dismissed.