Dzhakhanhirova v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 894

Dzhakhanhirova v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 894

Because the appellant had provided an email address and agreed that the Department could communicate with her by email, s 494B(5) authorised the Minister's delegate to send the visa refusal notification and decision record to that email address. The Tribunal therefore did not err in finding that the review application lodged on 17 July 2018 was out of time and that it had no jurisdiction. Leave to add new appeal grounds was refused because they either added no substantive new argument or could have been raised below and, in any event, the proposed notification ground had no real prospect of success.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Decision Refusing Constitutional Writ Relief in a Migration Matter / Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['visa Refusal Notification' 'methods of Giving Documents Under S 494 B of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'time Limit for Merits Review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'leave to Amend Notice of Appeal']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['visa Refusal Notification' 'methods of Giving Documents Under S 494 B of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'time Limit for Merits Review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'leave to Amend Notice of Appeal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Federal Circuit Court Decision Refusing Constitutional Writ Relief in a Migration Matter / Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether notification of the delegate's visa refusal by email was valid where the appellant had also provided her residential address as her address for correspondence." 'Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in finding it had no jurisdiction because the review application was out of time.' 'Whether leave should be granted on appeal to add grounds that were not raised before the Federal Circuit Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant had provided an email address and agreed that the Department could communicate with her by email, s 494B(5) authorised the Minister's delegate to send the visa refusal notification and decision record to that email address. The Tribunal therefore did not err in finding that the review application lodged on 17 July 2018 was out of time and that it had no jurisdiction. Leave to add new appeal grounds was refused because they either added no substantive new argument or could have been raised below and, in any event, the proposed notification ground had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]