Nguyen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1034

Nguyen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1034

The Form 956 completed by the applicant did not state that the migration agent was authorised to receive documents from the Minister instead of the applicant for the relevant cancellation process. Consequently, notification sent to the migration agent did not constitute proper notification under s 494D, nor was it compliant with reg 2.55(3)(d), and so the Tribunal's decision that the application was out of time was in error and jurisdiction remained to entertain the application.

Parties
Applicant: Thi Tuyet Anh Nguyen; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Federal Court Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Application allowed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Statutory Interpretation, Notification Requirements, Judicial Review, Tribunal Procedure
Administrative Law Migration Law Jurisdiction Statutory Interpretation Notification Requirements Judicial Review Tribunal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thi Tuyet Anh Nguyen

Applicant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Federal Court Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the review application lodged after the specified time-frame
  2. 2 Whether the Minister's notification was compliant with the statutory requirements under s 494D of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or regulation 2.55 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether the migration agent was properly appointed as an authorised recipient for notifications

Ratio Decidendi

The Form 956 completed by the applicant did not state that the migration agent was authorised to receive documents from the Minister instead of the applicant for the relevant cancellation process. Consequently, notification sent to the migration agent did not constitute proper notification under s 494D, nor was it compliant with reg 2.55(3)(d), and so the Tribunal's decision that the application was out of time was in error and jurisdiction remained to entertain the application.

Court Disposition

Application allowed

Orders

  • The decision of the second respondent (AAT) be quashed and the matter be remitted to the second respondent for determination of the application for review lodged on 13 December 2021 according to law.
  • The first respondent to pay the applicant's costs, to be assessed by a registrar on a lump sum basis if not agreed.