SZVEB v Minister for Immigration

SZVEB sought judicial review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration that his application for a Bridging visa E (Class WE) was invalid. The applicant required an extension of time of 462 days to make his application. However, on the application form, he marked the box indicating he was not applying for an extension of time, while simultaneously providing factual grounds that supported an application for an extension.

The primary legal issue before the Court was how to construe the application form, which constituted an "instrument," given the inconsistency between the applicant's marked answer and the factual grounds provided. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the applicant's negative response regarding an extension of time should be disregarded in favour of the substantive grounds he advanced, thereby constituting a valid written application for an extension of time under s 477(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

Dowdy J applied the principles of construction for instruments containing inconsistencies, holding that the applicant's negative answer on the form should be disregarded. The Court reasoned that the provision of detailed factual grounds for an extension of time demonstrated a clear intention to seek such an extension, rendering the marked "no" box an error. Consequently, the applicant was found to have made a written application for an extension of time. However, as the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the significant delay and asserted no substantive grounds for a finding of jurisdictional error, his application for judicial review was dismissed.