FNV17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1025

FNV17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1025

The Tribunal's decision not to reinstate the dismissed application was not legally unreasonable because adequate notice of the hearing was given to the appellants via email to their authorised representative and by SMS reminders to the first appellant. No satisfactory explanation was provided for the failure to act on the SMS messages. The Tribunal's exercise of discretion was supported by an intelligible justification and was within lawful bounds.

Parties
First Appellant: FNV17; Second Appellant: FNW17; Third Appellant: FNX17; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protection Visas, Administrative Appeals Tribunal Procedure, Judicial Review, Failure to Appear, Reinstatement of Dismissed Application, Legal Unreasonableness
Migration Law Administrative Law Protection Visas Administrative Appeals Tribunal Procedure Judicial Review Failure to Appear Reinstatement of Dismissed Application Legal Unreasonableness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FNV17

First Appellant

FNW17

Second Appellant

FNX17

Third Appellant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal's refusal to reinstate a dismissed application for review of protection visa refusal was legally unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether adequate notice of hearing was given to the appellants
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider mandatory relevant considerations in exercising discretion under s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's decision not to reinstate the dismissed application was not legally unreasonable because adequate notice of the hearing was given to the appellants via email to their authorised representative and by SMS reminders to the first appellant. No satisfactory explanation was provided for the failure to act on the SMS messages. The Tribunal's exercise of discretion was supported by an intelligible justification and was within lawful bounds.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellants pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $5,813.