Sang v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2024] FCA 518

Sang v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2024] FCA 518

The applicant lodged a bundle of documents with the Tribunal within the prescribed time. Applying the High Court's reasoning in Miller, that bundle was a valid application for review. The Tribunal's implicit finding that the application was invalid and its conclusion that it had no jurisdiction involved jurisdictional error. That strong merits case justified extending time, setting aside the Tribunal's decision, remitting the matter, and declaring the Tribunal application valid.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time for Judicial Review of a Migration Decision / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; application for review allowed; Tribunal decision set aside; matter remitted; declaration made; costs awarded to the applicant.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'visa Cancellation' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'jurisdictional Error' 'validity of Application for Review']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time' 'judicial Review' 'visa Cancellation' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'jurisdictional Error' 'validity of Application for Review']

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

Application for Extension of Time for Judicial Review of a Migration Decision / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended for the applicant to seek judicial review of the Tribunal's decision." 'Whether the bundle of documents lodged by the applicant with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal within time was a valid application for review.' 'Whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by finding implicitly that the application for review was invalid and that it had no jurisdiction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant lodged a bundle of documents with the Tribunal within the prescribed time. Applying the High Court's reasoning in Miller, that bundle was a valid application for review. The Tribunal's implicit finding that the application was invalid and its conclusion that it had no jurisdiction involved jurisdictional error. That strong merits case justified extending time, setting aside the Tribunal's decision, remitting the matter, and declaring the Tribunal application valid.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; application for review allowed; Tribunal decision set aside; matter remitted; declaration made; costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • ['The time for filing the application for review of a migration decision be extended to 8 September 2022.' "The second respondent's decision dated 22 June 2022 that it had no jurisdiction to review the decision of a delegate of the first respondent dated 16 May 2022 be set aside." 'The matter be remitted to the...