Virapornsawun v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The plaintiff, a citizen of Thailand, sought constitutional and other writs, including certiorari and mandamus, from the High Court of Australia. The application concerned a delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation of the plaintiff's visa under section 501CA(4) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The visa had been mandatorily cancelled under section 501(3A) due to a significant prison sentence. The delegate's decision not to revoke the cancellation was made on 4 June 2020, and subsequent applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia were unsuccessful.

The High Court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's application disclosed an arguable basis for the relief sought, particularly in light of significant delays in filing the application and the proposed grounds of review. The court considered whether the plaintiff had complied with the procedural requirements for seeking an extension of time under section 486A of the *Migration Act* and the High Court Rules, and whether the grounds of review – alleging the decision was made with no evidence, a denial of procedural fairness, and that the decision was legally unreasonable, illogical, and/or irrational – had any merit.

The Court dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 25.09.1 of the *High Court Rules 2004* (Cth) because it did not disclose an arguable basis for relief. The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to make a written application for an extension of time as required by section 486A(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*. Furthermore, even if such an application had been made, the Court would not have been satisfied that an extension was necessary in the interests of the administration of justice due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the application. The proposed grounds of review were also found to be without merit. Specifically, the Court held that the delegate was entitled to rely on the accumulated knowledge of the Department regarding conditions in Thailand, that procedural fairness did not require disclosure of the source of that knowledge, and that the alleged inconsistencies in the delegate's findings were not arguable as they related to different aspects of the decision-making process.

Consequently, the application for a constitutional or other writ was dismissed with costs.