Miller v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 183

Miller v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 183

The application lodged by the appellant did not contain a statement of the reasons for the application within s 29(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The statutory text and context showed that compliance with s 29(1)(c) was a condition of a valid application, at least by the expiry of the prescribed time. Because no complying application was made within the 9-day period required by s 500(6B) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal's jurisdiction was not engaged and the primary judge was correct to refuse relief. The appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Decision Refusing Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'manner of Applying for Review' 'statement of Reasons for Application' 'visa Cancellation Non Revocation' 'validity of Application' 'statutory Construction']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'manner of Applying for Review' 'statement of Reasons for Application' 'visa Cancellation Non Revocation' 'validity of Application' 'statutory Construction']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From Decision Refusing Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Did the appellant's application to the Tribunal contain a statement of the reasons for the application within the meaning of s 29(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) at the time it was made?" 'If the application did not comply with s 29(1)(c), was the application invalid?']

Ratio Decidendi

The application lodged by the appellant did not contain a statement of the reasons for the application within s 29(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The statutory text and context showed that compliance with s 29(1)(c) was a condition of a valid application, at least by the expiry of the prescribed time. Because no complying application was made within the 9-day period required by s 500(6B) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal's jurisdiction was not engaged and the primary judge was correct to refuse relief. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed."]