BST24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

1. This ground lacks particulars. A "failure to particularise a ground of review is itself a sufficient basis to dismiss it": NWWJ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 176 at [37].

1. In light of the serious consequences for the applicant if there is a jurisdictional error in one of the Tribunal's decisions and the fact she has not obtained legal assistance for her judicial review application, on application of the approach in Gomez v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 105; (2002) 190 ALR 543 at [23], "I have scrutinised the papers and the [Tribunal]'s reasons to see whether there was reviewable error" to the extent of "a mistake [which] clearly appears in the [Tribunal]'s reasons".
2. In undertaking the task in the above paragraph:

(a) For reasons explained in the Registrar Decision at [11], I am satisfied that the hearing invitation given to the applicant complied with the requirements imposed by ss 425 and 425A of the Act.

(b) For reasons explained in the Registrar Decision at [12]-[14], I am satisfied that the applicant was correctly notified of the Dismissal Decision for the purpose of s 426B.

(c) For reasons explained in the Registrar Decision at [17]-[19], I am satisfied that the exercise of power by the Tribunal under s 426A(1A)(b) was reasonable, and the applicant does not have arguable prospects of successfully establishing the contrary position at a final hearing of the application for judicial review.

1. Since no ground in the Originating Application has reasonable prospects of success, and no other mistake in the Tribunal's decisions clearly appears upon reviewing documents in the Court Book, the Registrar Review Application has no merit.

1. Upon weighing the above factors, I consider it is not appropriate to extend time for the applicant to file the Registrar Review Application. This is due to the failure of the applicant to provide an explanation for her delay in making the Registrar Review Application and the underlying application having no merit. As stated by Mortimer in CAL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1344 at [4], albeit in the context of a different discretionary procedural power, "it is not fair to exercise a discretion favourably to an applicant if the Court is not satisfied there is an arguable case ...".

1. At the conclusion of the hearing, I invited submissions on costs. Mr Djasmeini sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the sum of $750. The applicant did not oppose this order. I consider this amount is reasonable. I will make the order.

I certify that the preceding forty-five (45) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser.