Ganesan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 1899

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. Before the court is an application for an extension of time in which to apply for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeal Tribunal ('the Tribunal') on 27 June 2018. By that decision, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to review a decision of the delegate refusing to grant the applicant a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa ('the visa') on the basis that the application had, itself, been made out of time.
2. To the extent that the applicant also seeks a review of the delegate's decision, this court does not have the jurisdiction to undertake such a review pursuant to section 476 of the Migration Act 1965 (Cth) ('the Act'). This decision therefore is limited to a consideration of whether the Tribunal's decision is affected by jurisdictional error.

1. The applicant initially arrived in Australia in 2012. Thereafter she applied for a protection visa. That protection visa was refused, and the applicant sought a review of that refusal, initially by the Refugee Review Tribunal and then by way of judicial review in this court. Those applications were refused. The applicant appealed to the Federal Court, which was also refused on 15 August 2014.
2. On 12 March 2014, the applicant married Mr Alex Surenthiran Mohamed and on 25 May 2014, the applicant applied for a partner visa.[1] The applicant supplied various statutory declarations from friends who attest to the genuineness of the applicant's relationship with her husband.[2]
3. By letter dated 5 August 2014, the applicant was requested to comment on certain information regarding her partner visa application.[3] Relevantly, that letter noted that the applicant had not been the holder of a substantive visa when she applied for her partner visa. In those circumstances, the applicant was advised that the Migrations Regulations 1994 (Cth) ('the Regulations') required that she must satisfy the additional Schedule 3 criteria, in addition to satisfying the standard partner visa criteria. Relevantly, the applicant was advised that as had not lodged her partner visa within the requisite time period, the Regulations allowed for the waiver of the applicable criteria if there are compelling reasons for doing so. The correspondence then went on to set out some of the types of matters that might be considered to constitute compelling circumstances. The applicant was also invited to provide more information to substantiate the nature of her relationship with her spouse. A response to that request was provided by the applicant's then legal representative by letter dated 25 September 2014.[4] The applicant's representative set out various factors which they said constituted compelling circumstances warranting the waiving of the applicable criteria in this instance.
4. The applicant's representative also provided a series of statutory declarations in support of the nature of the applicant's relationship with her sponsor and other similar supporting evidence.[5]
5. By further letter dated 5 September 2017, the applicant was again invited to provide any further information that she wished to submit in support of her claim that the additional Schedule 3 criteria ought to be waived and further evidence of the nature of her relationship with her sponsor.[6]
6. By letter dated 18 October 2017, the applicant's representative responded to this request.[7] Relevantly, by this response, the applicant claimed that she had been the victim of family violence at the hands of her sponsor. It was submitted that during the delays in the processing of her partner visa application, 'her marriage had faltered'.[8] The applicant also provided a statutory declaration made by her dated 18 October 2017, in which the applicant stated that on 26 December 2016, she made a request for an intervention order ('IVO') against her husband and on 23 December 2016, she separated from her husband and has not returned to the relationship since that date.[9] The applicant also stated that an interim IVO was made on 9 January 2017 and a full IVO was obtained by Victoria Police on 9 May 2017.[10]
7. In her statutory declaration, the applicant also set out her arrival in Australia and her visa application history from that point on.[11] Also attached to this response was further material relevant to the applicant's claims of family violence and the IVO proceedings.[12]
8. By letter dated 28 March 2018, the applicant was advised that her visa application was refused on the basis that she was found not to have met the criteria for granting the visa.[13]
9. Relevantly the letter dated 28 March 2018 contained the following:[14]

Review rights

The decision can be reviewed.

The Department cannot consider your visa application any further. However, you are entitled to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a merits review of this decision if you have an approved sponsor, or your sponsor is seeking a merits review of a sponsorship refusal decision. An application for merits review of this decision must be given to the AAT within 21 calendar days after the day on which you are taken to have received this letter.

You may only seek merits review of this decision with the AAT if you are physically present in Australia at the time this application for merits review is made.

This review period is prescribed in law and an application for merits review may not be accepted after that date.

(Emphasis added)

1. On 18 May 2018, the applicant filed an application for review with the Tribunal.[15] At the time of lodging this application, the applicant was represented by RD Education and Migration Services. In the covering letter under which the application for review was made, also dated 18 May 2018, the applicant's representative stated:[16]

The Applicant understands that the application is being lodged out of time and the reasons for this are provided within this letter. Further evidence is attached to show that the Applicant wasted no time in making this application once she was notified of the refusal decision.

... we understand that the applicant's decision is a reviewable one by the AAT who would have jurisdiction in this matter; however, the application for review is being lodged outside the relevant time limit due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control.

We have sought guidance from the Migration Institute of Australia who also advised us that the Tribunal has the discretion to accept the application and may do so in extreme circumstances.

We would like to request that the Tribunal accept this application for review on compassionate grounds.

1. Relevantly, in setting out the timeline in the applicant's visa application process, her representative stated:[17]
   1. The Applicant's previous representative had advised her during a phone conversation that her partner visa was refused and she had no status. On 30 March 2018 the Applicant received a text message from her previous representative that her partner visa had been refused (the date was not provided). The Applicant genuinely believed that her previous representative was lying due to her previous conversation and as we had provided her a copy of her VEVO check which showed no status during the time her Partner visa supposedly was being processed. Evidence of the text message received is provided.
   2. We have prepared an application for a Ministerial Intervention for the Applicant which was posted on 10 May 2018 in relation to her previously refused protection visa application. During this time, we had no knowledge of the Applicant's partner visa being in process as her previous representative had misled us as well.
   3. The Applicant received a phone call from an officer ... of the Department of Home Affairs on 09 May 2018 to attend an interview.
   4. The interview at the Department of Home Affairs took place on 14 May 2018 at 9.30 A.M.
   5. During the interview we learnt of the refusal of the application which was dated 28 March 2018.
   6. The Applicant submits that she received no e-mail record from the Department of Home Affairs or her previous representative of the notification of refusal of her Partner visa application.
2. The applicant's representative then set out the reasons why they said that the applicant's application for review ought to be accepted. It relevantly stated, among other things:[18]

The Applicant states that she has been in a difficult time for some time now and her trust in a professional agent has been misused. It is an unfortunate circumstance for the Applicant to be in this situation due to the negligence of her previous representative who is licences by the Australian government body who is supposedly qualified to professionally hence upbringing the law.

...the Applicant, feels that she has not been represented to the utmost competency and requests a fair chance if the Tribunal can make this exception to allow the Applicant to make a review Application to the Tribunal.

(Emphasis in original)

1. On 22 May 2018, the applicant was, by letter to her representative, invited to comment on the validity of the application for review.[19] Relevantly, the correspondence from the Tribunal contained the following:[20]

I am of the view that your application is not a valid application as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit. The time limit is 21 days from the day on which you are taken to have been notified of the primary decision. The primary decision was emailed to you on 28 March 2018 an on the basis that 28 March 2018 was the date on which you are taken to have been notified, the last day for lodging the application for review was 18 April 2018. As the application was not received until 18 May 2018, it appears to be out of time. However, this is a matter which must be determined by a Member.

If you wish to make any comments on whether a valid application has been made, you are invited to do so, in writing, by 5 June 2018...

1. By letter dated 5 June 2018, the applicant's representative provided a response to the request for comment.[21] Relevantly, the applicant's representative confirmed that the applicant was aware that her application was filed out of time but said that: [22]

she was not informed competently and neither professionally of the decision by her agent. Further the Applicant's agent did not advise us, Applicant's current migration agent, of her file being in progress at the Department of Home Affairs

(Emphasis added).

1. The applicant's representative further stated that the applicant only came to 'officially know of her refusal decision when she visited the Department of Home Affairs for her interview meeting; thus, the Applicant was not notified of the decision in accordance with statutory requirements'.[23]
2. Annexed to this response, was, among other things, an undated text message from the applicant's former representative in the following terms:[24]

Anushanthy

Your spouse application has been refused. Please contact office immediately, pay the outstanding fees, and attend further to what you wish to do. Regards Ravi James.

1. There are various email exchanges between the applicant's current representative to her former representative.[25] In an email dated 6 December 2017, the current representative requests access to the applicant's documentation 'who has now taken our services to represent her'.[26] A response from Ravi James Lawyers stated:[27]

... note that our invoices for work attended to in these matters have not been paid.

We are drawing the attention of the subject client to same, and once attended, will arrange to forward same.

1. Further correspondence was sent by RD Education and Migration Services to Ravi James Lawyers on 15 December 2017 seeking information about the status of the applicant's visa application.[28] In that letter, RD Education and Migration Services stated:[29]

The subject client informed us that she visited your office on 05 December 2017 in relation to her Partner visa Application (particularly providing you with the requested from 1410, etc) - however, the subject client's VEVO shows no visa currently being held.

1. Mr Ravi James then replied in more detail by email dated 18 December 2017 at 4.45pm.[30] In that email, he set out his involvement with the applicant and relevantly noted their involvement in her current visa application at the time, the difficulties between the applicant and her husband about the payment of legal fees and the circumstances in which the documents requested could be released. Relevantly, in relation to the status of the spousal visa application, Mr James said:[31]

First, we did not represent to her to lodge a spouse visa application or lodge this for her but took over to monitor same lodged by them. In the meantime, the couple by matrimonial issues and due to violence had separated. They were not able to submit additional documents to satisfy the "genuine and ongoing" criteria and the impact of family violence has been notified and claimed for an outcome. The client is more than aware of the current status of her spouse application.

1. It is apparent from this that the spouse application had not, at the time of that correspondence, yet been determined. No further correspondence is provided as between the applicant's representatives.
2. By letter dated 27 June 2018, the Tribunal advised the applicant that her application for review could not be dealt with on the basis that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to do so.[32] On this basis, the applicant's application fee was to be refunded. In the decision record dated 27 June 2018,[33] the Tribunal found that the applicant was taken to have been notified of the decision on 28 March 2018 and therefore the prescribed period for filing an application for review ended on 18 April 2018.[34] The Member went on to say:[35]
   1. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 18 May 2018 it follows that the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.
3. On 15 February 2019, the applicant filed an application for judicial review in this court. In that application, the applicant purportedly seeks a review both of the Tribunal's decision and also that of the delegate.[36] As the applicant's application was filed outside the 35 day time limit for doing so, the applicant seeks an extension of time in which to proceed with her application in this court.

1. In her application for review, the applicant raises the following grounds of review:
   1. The second respondent failed to see the circumstances around my case. The second respondent did not consider why the review was lodged outside the time period and the compelling and compassionate reasons behind it.
   2. I was not notified by my previous agent of my visa refusal given by the first respondent which is why my application to the second respondent was out of time.
   3. I made many attempts to contact my previous lawyer who did not disclose to me that my partner visa file was being processed and then was later refused. My previous lawyer acted in a incompetent manner and did not represent me in a just way.
   4. The second respondent should be flexible in using its law to allow my application on compelling and compassionate grounds.
   5. I am requesting for the court to allow my husband and I to make a new application for a partner visa subclass 820 as my previous lawyer's failure to notify me of the processing of my partner visa led me to the situation I am in today.
   6. My husband and I both feel there has been gross negligence here by my previous immigration lawyer who did not notify me of my partner visa case subclass 820.

1. As stated, as the applicant's application for judicial review was filed out of time, the applicant seeks an extension of time to proceed with that application. In support of the extension of time application, the applicant states:
   1. I have applied for ministerial intervention through my migration agent and we have not received any correspondence in return from them whether they have accepted my file or not.
   2. I am pregnant and expecting a baby soon so my husband and I would like to solve my case as soon as possible which is why we think it is best to go to the federal circuit court to make an appeal to them regarding the jurisdictional error in my previous case.
   3. Once I received a decision from the migration review tribunal I had requested my agent to make an application to the minister to intervene so that my application be accepted I be allowed to make an application.
   4. I was not notified by my previous migration about the status of my partner visa application. If I had received the refusal notification in time I would have appealed in time to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
   5. My previous migration agent who is also a legal practitioner, a lawyer, acted incompetently and failed to carry out his duties in a proper and legal manner. He did not notify me of the decision even though I made numerous attempts to ask him about the status of my application.
   6. My current migration agent also asked my previous migration agent regarding my visa application status but did not inform them as well. My current migration agent had spoken to the migration institute of Australia who had advised them to apply to the administrative appeals tribunal for out of time application on compassionate and compelling grounds.
   7. I gave evidence to the tribunal for reasons to accept my application but they did not accept my application.
   8. My husband and I are waiting for the decision from my ministerial intervention application at this stage.
   9. I request for the federal circuit court to accept my application as myself and my husband would like to get justice for the way our file has gone due to the incompetency of legal practitioners who have misled me.
2. Before turning to consider the extension of time application, I note the applicant via her then representative, Ravi James Lawyers, notified the Department of Immigration and Border Protection ('the Department') that she had appointed Ravi James Lawyers to provide immigration assistance in relation to her partner visa application.[37] That notification was signed by the applicant, and by Ravi James Lawyers on 5 September 2014 and 10 September 2014 respectively. Relevantly, this was after the partner visa application was lodged by the applicant and her husband. There was no revocation of this appointment prior to the Tribunal's decision.

1. In circumstances where the Tribunal decision was made on 27 June 2018 and the applicant filed her judicial review application on 15 February 2019, the application for judicial review was filed just under seven months out of time.
2. As Justice McHugh noted in Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Marks [2000] HCA 67 at [15]:

An extension of time for seeking relief against a decision or judgement can only be granted if it is necessary to do justice between the parties. That means that it is necessary to have regard to the history of the matter, the conduct of both parties, the nature of the litigation and the consequences for the parties of a grant or refusal of the extension. Where an applicant seeks the issue of the constitutional or prerogative writs, a further factor must be considered. Those writs are directed at the acts or decisions of public bodies or officials, and the public interest requires that there be an end to litigation about the efficacy of such acts or decisions...

1. The court has a broad discretion in considering whether to grant an extension of time in such matters. In considering whether to do so, the court will generally have regard to the following:
   • the length of delay and the explanation for that delay;
   • any prejudice to the respondent; and
   • the prospects of success of the substantive application.

1. In this case, a delay of seven months is not insignificant.
2. In support of her application for an extension of time, the applicant filed an affidavit in which she deposes to the following:
   • she is genuinely fearful for her life if she were to return to her home country;
   • she has compassionate and compelling grounds to meet the requirements of Schedule 3 criteria;
   • although her relationship with her husband went through a rough patch resulting in her obtaining an IVO, they are happily together now and expecting a child;
   • her previous agent (Ravi James Lawyers) misled her and her subsequent migration agent (RD Education and Migration Services), about the status of her partner visa application; and
   • and it was only after RD Education and Migration Services made further inquiries that she became aware that her visa had been refused.
3. Relevantly, in her affidavit she said:
   1. The communication between my current agent and previous agent happened on 06 December 2018, 15 December 2018 and 18 December 2018. My partner visa was refused on 28 March 2018 and when learning of this refusal my agent applied to the AAT for an out of time application and a decision made by tribunal was that they did not have jurisdiction in this matter dated 27 June 2018. The Ministerial Intervention application was sent on 10 May 2018.
   2. Had my previous migration agent who is also licensed lawyer provided me of my partner visa refusal on time then I would have been able to have my case heard at the tribunal in the appropriate time. My previous agent/lawyer breached section 66 of the Migration Act.
4. The contents of paragraph 11 are not consistent with the material contained in the Court Book. As set out earlier, the correspondence between the applicant's representative RD Education and Migration Services and her previous representative Ravi James Lawyers occurred in December 2017 not December 2018.[38] That is, this communication occurred before she was notified of the outcome of the Department's decision. Moreover, it was open to the applicant to notify the Department at that point that she no longer wanted correspondence about her visa application to be sent to her former representative and that such correspondence should have been directed to her directly or to her new representative. Absent that, the Department took the appropriate steps and notified her, via her appointed representative.
5. Moreover, the evidence before the court suggests that Ravi James Lawyers did in fact send the applicant a text message advising that her application had been refused shortly after they received notification of same from the Department.[39] The applicant says that she thought her representative was lying. Whilst it may be accepted that her relationship with her previous representative had broken down, she could have checked this information at the time by contacting the Tribunal directly or contacting the Department. Alternatively, she should have asked her current representative to contact the Department or the Tribunal on her behalf. Had she taken any of those steps, she would have received notification of the refusal of her Tribunal application within the time permitted for a review application to have been filed with the Tribunal.
6. The applicant further stated that she decided to file an application in this court in circumstances where she was still awaiting the outcome of the request for Ministerial intervention which was lodged on her behalf on 10 May 2018.[40] The applicant then went on to further state in paragraph 15 of her affidavit:
   1. I am making this out of time application now because it has been time since we have heard from Ministerial intervention and after discussing with my husband and for our child's future we think we should apply to court to have our say and plea to judge for justice. Because of lawyers carelessness, unprofessionalism and failure to follow time had led me here because I could not be heard at tribunal and I have not been careless in this matter. My out of time application had passed also due to my previous agents negligence. I have not deliberately delayed the review time 'But for' my previous agents negligence I am facing this hardship.
7. I note that whilst the applicant claims that the fact that she was not advised of the outcome of the delegate's decision, led to the delay in her filing her application with the Tribunal, it is not clear how the applicant says that this particular factor has contributed to or caused the delay in filing her application in this court.
8. At its highest, it appears that the applicant made a decision to seek Ministerial Intervention instead of applying to this court, but then given the time taken for clarity around the outcome of that process, she has determined to apply to this court. In my view the length of the delay in seeking judicial review has not been adequately explained. The length of the delay itself and the reasons proffered for that delay are both factors which weigh against granting an extension of time.
9. As noted in M211 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2004] FCAFC 293 at [21] to [24], making and awaiting the outcome of an application for Ministerial Intervention does not of itself provide a reasonable explanation for a delay in seeking judicial review.
10. Having regard to the totality of the material before me, the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in bringing proceedings in this court. This is a factor which weighs against the granting of an extension of time.

1. The Minister does not claim that they will suffer any prejudice if an extension of time is granted other than the benefit of finalising litigation in a timely manner.

1. I therefore turn to consider the merits of the application itself and whether this might weigh in favour of the granting of an extension of time.

1. Grounds 1 and 4 are premised on the idea that the Tribunal has some discretion in relation to time limits for the making of an application for review. For the reasons which follow, that, with respect, misunderstands the effect of the Act. Once notification of the delegate's decision to refuse a visa has been given in accordance with the Act, the Tribunal does not have a discretion to extend the time within which a review applicant can be made.
2. As noted by Justice Marshall in Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 145 at [7]:

Section 347 of the Act permits a review of a decision of a delegate to the Tribunal... Section 347(1)(b) provides that an application for a review must be made within the prescribed period. Regulation 4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)... prescribes a period of 21 days to bring an application to review a decision referred to in s 338(2) of the Act where, as here, the applicant is not in immigration detention. The Regulations do not provide for an extension to the 21 day time limit, even in special or exceptional circumstances. This appears to be a deliberate choice of the framers of the regulations. An application for review of a delegate's decision is taken to be given to the Tribunal when it is received at the Tribunal's registry...

1. Grounds 1 and 4 therefore raise for consideration the notification of the delegates' decision was given consistently with section 66 of the Act.
2. I note for completeness that for the reasons set out earlier, it appears from the applicant's own material that her previous representative at the time in fact did notify her by text message that her visa application had been refused and directed her to seek further advice and/or take further action.[41] For reasons set out earlier, the fact that the applicant did not believe him, does not assist her. Upon receipt of that notification, it was within the applicant's power to have checked whether this was in fact correct or not. There is no evidence before the court that the applicant took any action upon receipt of that text message.
3. Section 66 sets out various ways in which a visa refusal decision can be notified to an applicant. If there is a failure to notify in a permitted manner, there is no notification and the time for filing an application for review does not commence.[42]
4. Section 66(2)(d) of the Act set out the matters that must be contained in a notice of visa refusal which for present purposes included that:
   • the decision could be reviewed;
   • the time within which the application for review may be made;
   • who can apply for a review; and
   • where the application for review can be made.
5. It is well settled that any notification given must be sufficiently clear in order to comply with the requirements of s 66(d) of the Act.[43] In the recent decision of Judge Champion in Ahmad v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 326, his Honour helpfully summarised the current state of the law in relation to the requirements of section 66(d)(2) at [35] - [43] which I, respectfully, adopt.
6. The applicant submits that the reasoning in DFQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 64 ('DFQ17') applies to the notification letter. In DFQ17, Justice Perram observed at [59] to [60]:
   1. Turning then to the letter of 3 February 2017, the question is whether it 'states' the time within which a review application must be made within the meaning of s 66(2). This is a question of law ... As I have explained, the question of whether the notification stated 'the time in which the application for review may be made' necessarily devolves to an inquiry into whether that information was clearly conveyed.
   2. As described above, the letter referred to the time in which the application for review may be made in different sections across different pages. On page 2 of the letter under the heading 'Review Rights' the letter referred to the 28 day period during which the applicant could seek review of the delegate's refusal decision. The letter then referred to the seven day period by which the appellant was taken to have received the notification on page 3 under the heading 'Financial or Case Worker Assistance'. The date of the letter was on the top left of page 1. It was from these three separate pieces of information across three pages under different headings, that the appellant, whilst remembering to double-count 14 February 2017 was expected to calculate 13 March 2017.
7. It is submitted for the Minister that the notification of decision letter sent was in relevantly identical terms to that in Ali v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1102 ('Ali') at [26] to [27] and therefore the reasoning in that case ought to apply. In Ali, relevantly, Justice Nicholas noted that the statement that any application for review must be lodged within 21 calendar days after the day on which the applicant was taken to have received appeared on page one of the letter. His Honour also noted that as the letter had been sent by email, the applicant would be taken to have received it at the end of the day on which it had been transmitted and that a statement to this effect, appeared on page three of the letter. His Honour in Ali then went on to say at [29] to [30]:
   1. A person exercising a reasonable amount of care when reading the letter would understand it to convey that an application for review had to be lodged within 21 calendar days after the date the letter was emailed. In my opinion the letter provided sufficient information to facilitate the timeous lodgement of an application for review...
   2. None of the complexities that the appellant in DFQ17 faced in determining the time in which an application for review could be made are present in this case. I find that the letter sent to the appellant by email on 21 April 2017 clearly conveyed that an application for review was required to be lodged within 21 days of the date the email was transmitted and that it complied with the relevant requirements of s 66(2)(d) of the Act.
8. In this case, the letter is in very similar terms to that considered in Ali. The complexities that arose in DFQ17 do not arise. Nor do the complexities that arose in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v Park [2024] FCAFC 136 and set out in detail at [33] of that decision, arise. I respectfully adopt and apply the reasoning in Ali to the facts before me and conclude that a person exercising a reasonable amount of care when reading the letter would understand that they had to lodge any application for review of the refusal decision within 21 days of receipt of the email. It therefore follows that the requirements of section 66(d) of the Act have been met in this instance.
9. In addition, at the relevant time, regulation 2.16(3) of the Regulations required that the Minister notify the applicant of a decision to refuse a visa in one of the methods specified in section 494B of the Act.
10. Section 494B of the Act relevantly permitted such notification to be by email to the last email address provided to the Minister for the purposes of receiving documents. Section 494C of the Act then conclusively deems that a person has received a document given by such a method. In the case of transmission by email, section 494C (5) of the Act provides that 'the person is taken to have received the document at the end of the day on which the document is transmitted.' Section 494D of the Act provides that if a person provides the Minister with written notice of an authorised recipient, who is authorised by the first mentioned person to receive documents in connection with specified matters, the Minister 'must give the authorised recipient, instead of the first person, any documents in connection with those matters, that the Minister would otherwise have given to the first person'.
11. The applicant appointed Ravi James Lawyers as her authorised recipient on 10 September 2014 and provided the following email address: 'r***lawyers@gmail.com'. The applicant at no stage revoked this nomination nor replaced it with any other person. In those circumstances, the Minister was required to send the notice of decision refusing the visa application to the applicant's authorised recipient at 'r***lawyers@gmail.com', which it did. Having done so, the applicant was deemed to have received that notification at the end of the day on which it was sent, namely 28 March 2018.

1. By ground 2, the applicant asserts that she was not notified by her previous agent that her visa application had been refused. As set out earlier, this is not consistent with her own evidence and the evidence before the court that she was notified but she did not believe him.
2. This does not give rise to any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
3. Nor does ground 3 or ground 6 properly identify any potential jurisdictional error. At its highest both of these grounds raise a complaint about the quality of the representation that the applicant received from her first representative.

1. Ground 5 requests that the court permit the applicant to allow her to apply for a new visa. The court's function on judicial review is limited to considering whether the Tribunal decision is affected by jurisdictional error. Ground 5 does not identify any jurisdictional error.

1. Absent any deficiency in the notification letter itself, no other error arises either as per the applicant's grounds of review or otherwise. Having regard to the requirements of section 494B of the Act, the Minister was required to send the notification decision to the applicant's authorised recipient.[44] It did so and in doing so, no jurisdictional error arises.
2. In circumstances where there are no reasonable prospects of the grounds of review raised by the applicant succeeding, I find that the applicant's application for an extension of time ought to be dismissed.
3. I therefore make the orders set out at the commencement of these written reasons.

I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Deputy Chief Judge Mercuri.

[34] Tribunal's statement of decision and reasons dated 27 June 2018 at paragraph 5.

[35] Tribunal statement of decision and reasons dated 27 June 2018 at paragraph 5.

[42] Sandor v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 434 at [53] and cases referred to therein.

[43] DGQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 64.

[44] Le v Minister for Immigration [157] FCR 321 at [25]