//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:cth/HCASJ/2025/13
respondent. The plaintiff's application for a constitutional or other writ was dismissed with costs.
15 cited instruments linked from this judgment.
The Department asked Mr Lama more than once for a particular AFP police check used for Australian immigration and citizenship purposes. He provided a different type of AFP check, intended for a visa application to another country. Gordon J concluded that the two checks were not interchangeable: their purposes affected what the AFP could investigate and disclose. The certificate supplied therefore did not provide the criminal-history evidence requested under the regulation. The Court dismissed Mr Lama's application for writs with costs.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,033 words · generated 03/10/2026
In Lama v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCASJ 13, Gordon J considered an application for constitutional or other writs challenging the refusal of Ashish Lama's subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa application. The judgment records that the visa criteria included a requirement to provide evidence that Mr Lama had applied for an Australian Federal Police (AFP) check within the preceding 12 months, and a requirement to satisfy public interest criterion 4001 ([1], citing cl 485.213(1) and cl 485.216 of Sch 2 to the (Cth)).
Mr Lama's visa application, lodged on 5 September 2023, disclosed that he had been charged with an offence awaiting legal action. He described the offence as assault and said he had been wrongly accused. He also supplied an AFP National Police Check (NPC) dated 8 April 2021 ([3]). On 20 September 2023, the Department of Home Affairs asked him to provide a current AFP NPC. The attached instructions identified the relevant purpose code as Code 33, “Immigration/Citizenship - for supply to the Department of Home Affairs”, and explained that this would produce the certificate titled “Immigration/Citizenship - Australia” ([4]).
Mr Lama supplied a Code 35 NPC instead. It was headed “Overseas Visa – Supply to a Country other than Australia – Name Check Only” ([5]). The Department told him it was insufficient and requested the Code 33 certificate again in November and December 2023 ([6]-[7]). A delegate refused the visa application on 22 January 2024, concluding that Mr Lama had not provided the documentation required by reg 2.03AA(2)(a) ([8]).
Mr Lama's application to the High Court, filed on 30 October 2024, sought certiorari to quash the refusal and mandamus requiring the Minister to decide the application according to law ([9]-[10]). His single proposed ground was that the delegate failed to consider relevant material, namely an AFP police clearance certificate. Gordon J dismissed the application with costs ([30]).
The central question was not simply whether the document came from the AFP. The Court examined whether the certificate supplied answered the request made under reg 2.03AA(2)(a), and whether it provided the kind of evidence the regulation describes ([14]).
Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a), as set out at [2], provides that where the Minister has requested a statement from an appropriate authority in a country where the person resides or has resided, providing evidence about whether the person has a criminal history, the person must have provided the requested documents or information. Gordon J applied that wording to the repeated request for a Code 33 certificate. The delegate requested that specific certificate at least three times and provided the AFP web address and instructions for obtaining it ([28]).
A significant part of the reasoning concerned what the different purpose codes meant in practice. The AFP application form listed Code 33 as for immigration or citizenship supply to the Department of Home Affairs, and Code 35 as for an overseas visa application for supply to a country other than Australia ([12]). The form also warned that exclusions under spent-convictions legislation might apply to some categories of NPCs and set out the applicant's consent concerning extraction and disclosure of police information ([13], [20]).
The Court accepted the Minister's submission that the purpose for which the certificate was sought mattered to the AFP's inquiry and disclosure. It noted that the relevant spent-convictions legislation in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania contained exceptions for immigration or citizenship checks by the Department, but not for checks by a foreign government ([21]). On that footing, applying for Code 35 did not provide consent for disclosure to the Department to the extent permitted for Australian immigration checks ([22]). The Court rejected Mr Lama's argument that the possibility of obtaining his own criminal history meant that Code 35 sufficed. His consent was constrained by the Code 35 purpose for which he applied ([23]).
The Court therefore concluded that the Code 35 certificate could not provide the information requested. Its inquiry and disclosure were necessarily more constrained than those for Code 33 ([29]). The key point is that the documents were not treated as equivalent merely because both were issued by the AFP or because the application form described the offences that might be released in broadly similar terms. Their stated purpose affected the scope of the check and the disclosure available.
The Court also considered Mr Lama's single judicial-review ground. It accepted that he had supplied an AFP certificate and that the delegate rejected it, but found that this did not establish an arguable basis for relief ([26]). As the Code 35 document did not respond to the Code 33 request, the delegate's rejection of it did not, on the reasoning given, amount to the asserted failure to consider relevant material.
The judgment applied the existing text of reg 2.03AA(2)(a); it did not record a legislative amendment or announce that the regulation itself had changed. Before the decision, the regulation, as reproduced at [2], already linked the criterion to a request by the Minister for a statement or other information about criminal history. It also allowed waiver of the paragraph (2)(a) requirement where the Minister was satisfied that it was not reasonable for the applicant to provide the statement (2). The judgment did not apply or decide a waiver issue.
The decision clarifies how Gordon J construed that requirement in the circumstances before her. Where the delegate requested a particular type of AFP certificate for a stated immigration purpose, the applicant's provision of a certificate issued for a different purpose did not necessarily fulfil the request. The distinction was substantive because the purpose code affected the extent of inquiry and disclosure, including the operation of spent-convictions exceptions ([20]-[23], [28]-[29]).
The judgment also addressed the reasonableness of the request in this case. Gordon J said there was nothing to suggest that the AFP was not an appropriate authority or that the delegate acted unreasonably in making the request ([28]). That observation was tied to the particular request and record before the Court. The judgment does not establish that every request for a particular form or document will be reasonable, nor does it discuss the full range of circumstances in which the regulation's waiver provision could operate.
The reasoning should therefore be read at the level the judgment supports: the certificate supplied here did not contain the evidence the delegate had requested, because the different purpose of Code 35 restricted the relevant inquiry and disclosure. The source provided does not establish broader propositions about every AFP check, every spent-conviction regime, or every request under the regulation.
At [27], the Court set out the operative structure of reg 2.03AA(2)(a): “If the Minister has requested” the described documents or information, “the person has provided” them. In plain English, the provision makes the request relevant: once a qualifying request is made, the required response is to provide the requested criminal-history evidence.
At [28], Gordon J explained that the delegate requested Code 33 because it would provide evidence from an appropriate Australian authority about whether Mr Lama had a criminal history. She also noted the repeated requests and the instructions given. In plain English, the Department did not merely ask for an unspecified police certificate; it identified the Australian immigration certificate it required and told Mr Lama how to apply for it.
At [29], the Court stated that the Code 35 certificate “did not, because it could not,” provide the information requested. The reason was that the scope of the AFP's inquiry and disclosure under Code 35 was necessarily more constrained than under Code 33. In plain English, the difference between the certificates affected their contents, so one could not simply stand in for the other.
The final order at [30] dismissed the application for constitutional or other writs with costs. The Court did not grant the relief sought.
The reasoning is most directly relevant to a situation with the same material features: a visa criterion requiring criminal-history information following a request; a request identifying a particular police-check purpose or certificate; repeated instructions on how to obtain it; and an applicant supplying a certificate obtained for a different purpose.
The case highlights several factual matters that were important to the Court:
The judgment does not say that a document's title alone will always determine whether it meets a legal requirement. Its reasoning concerned the evidence the certificates could provide, as well as the purpose and consent attached to the particular check. It also does not determine what would happen if an applicant supplied a different document that nevertheless contained the full information requested, or if a relevant authority had no appropriate certificate matching the Department's request.
The judgment is dated 6 March 2025. The material supplied for this analysis contains no later decisions discussing, applying, distinguishing or limiting Lama. It is therefore not possible, from this source alone, to describe later judicial treatment.
The judgment itself refers to earlier authorities in addressing the extension-of-time submissions and the reasonableness of the delegate's request. The Minister relied on Vella v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection for the proposition that an extension exceeding 230 days required an exceptional case ([25], footnote 13). Gordon J said it was appropriate to address the merits, then dismissed the application because its proposed ground disclosed no arguable basis for relief ([25]-[30]). The judgment does not separately determine the extension question.
At [28], the Court referred to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li and Kruger v The Commonwealth in connection with the proposition that there was nothing to suggest that the delegate acted unreasonably in making the request. The reasons do not provide a broader discussion of those authorities or set out a general test beyond the point for which they were referenced.
Several matters remain outside the decision's express scope. First, the Court did not decide how reg 2.03AA(2)(a) would apply where an applicant could not obtain the specific document requested, or where the Department had requested information in a form that was unavailable. The regulation's waiver provision is reproduced at 2, but the judgment does not decide its operation because no such issue was resolved.
Second, the Court did not decide whether a differently coded certificate could ever satisfy the regulation if it provided the same criminal-history evidence as the requested certificate. Its conclusion here depended on the finding that Code 35's inquiry and disclosure were necessarily more constrained than Code 33's ([29]).
Third, the judgment did not decide whether the information supplied by Code 35 was incomplete in every relevant respect or identify particular convictions or proceedings that were not disclosed. It reasoned from the scope of the two checks and the applicable restrictions, rather than setting out a comparison of individual entries.
Fourth, although Mr Lama sought an extension of time, the Court did not separately rule on the extension arguments after concluding that the proposed ground did not disclose an arguable basis for relief ([25]-[30]). The judgment therefore should not be read as deciding the general criteria for an extension in circumstances like Mr Lama's.
Finally, the judgment does not resolve the visa application itself or determine whether Mr Lama had a criminal history. It decides the judicial-review application on the basis that the certificate supplied did not provide the evidence required by the request. This is general legal information, not legal advice; Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
Source: the High Court of Australia (www.hcourt.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GORDON J
ASHISH LAMA PLAINTIFF
AND
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS DEFENDANT
[2025] HCASJ 13
Date of Hearing: 21 February 2025
Date of Judgment: 6 March 2025
P36 of 2024
ORDER
Representation
S L Frankel for the plaintiff (instructed by Estrin Saul Lawyers)
C M R Ernst for the defendant (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
GORDON J. On 5 September 2023, the plaintiff ("Mr Lama") lodged an application for a Temporary Graduate (class VC) Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa ("the Visa") on the basis of completing his studies on a Student (subclass 500) visa. The defendant, the Minister, must only grant the Visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) if satisfied, amongst other things, that the criteria prescribed by the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) ("the Regulations") have been satisfied.1 Relevantly, the Regulations prescribe that an application for the Visa must be accompanied by evidence that the applicant had applied for an Australian Federal Police ("AFP") check in the 12 months before the application was made2 and that the applicant is required to satisfy public interest criteria 4001.3
Regulation 2.03AA of the Regulations relevantly provides that:
"(1) ... if a person is required to satisfy public interest criteria 4001 or 4002 for the grant of a visa, the criterion in subregulation (2) is prescribed.
(2) If the Minister has requested the following documents or information, the person has provided the documents or information:
(a) a statement (however described) provided by an appropriate authority in a country where the person resides, or has resided, that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history;
(b) a completed approved form 80.
Note: For paragraph (a), an example of an appropriate authority is a police force.
(3) The Minister may waive the requirement in paragraph (2)(a) if the Minister is satisfied that it is not reasonable for the applicant to provide the statement." (emphasis added)
In his application for the Visa, in response to the question whether he had ever been charged with an offence that is currently awaiting legal action, Mr Lama answered "yes". The offence type was described as "assault" although Mr Lama said he had been "wrongly accused". As part of the application, Mr Lama provided an AFP National Police Check ("NPC") headed "Immigration/Citizenship – Australia – Name check only" dated 8 April 2021.4
On 20 September 2023, the Department of Home Affairs ("the Department") sent a letter by email to Mr Lama requesting that he provide a current AFP NPC as the certificate provided with his application had expired. Importantly, there was a document enclosed with the letter headed "Request detail; Australian Federal Police (AFP) National Police Certificate". Under that heading, Mr Lama was told that the application form to be used to obtain the certificate was on the AFP website. The website address was set out. Further instructions about how to complete the form were then provided, followed by the statement that:
"For the purpose of the check, use code 33 'Immigration/Citizenship - for supply to the Department of Home Affairs'. This will ensure you receive the correct certificate titled 'Immigration/Citizenship - Australia'." (emphasis added)
The NPC headed "Immigration/Citizenship - for supply to the Department of Home Affairs" will be referred to in these reasons as the "Code 33 NPC".
On 26 September 2023, Mr Lama did not provide the Department with a Code 33 NPC. Instead, Mr Lama provided a Code 35 NPC headed "Overseas Visa – Supply to a Country other than Australia – Name Check Only". That NPC certified that there were "no disclosable court outcomes" recorded against his name. It will be necessary to return to consider the purpose and content of a Code 33 NPC and a Code 35 NPC.
On 13 November 2023, the Department emailed a letter to Mr Lama stating that the NPC he had provided, being a Code 35 NPC, was "insufficient" and requesting a new NPC headed "Immigration/Citizenship – Australia", being a Code 33 NPC. The emailed letter again included the same page headed "Request detail" which had been provided to Mr Lama in September 2023.
On 20 December 2023, the Department again emailed a letter to Mr Lama stating that "[w]e need more information to help us assess your application". The letter again stated that the NPC Mr Lama had provided was "insufficient" and requested a new NPC headed "Immigration/Citizenship – Australia", a Code 33 NPC.5 Again, the letter directed Mr Lama to "follow the instructions below to obtain the correct certificate" and under the heading "Request detail" provided the same information which had been provided to Mr Lama in September and November 2023.
On 22 January 2024, Mr Lama's visa application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs ("the delegate") who formed the view that Mr Lama had failed to meet the requirements of para 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Regulations because he had "not provided the required documentation that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history". In short, Mr Lama had provided a Code 35 NPC, not a Code 33 NPC.
On 30 October 2024, Mr Lama filed in this Court an application for a constitutional or other writ seeking review of the delegate's decision. The parties correctly agree that this Court cannot remit the matter in accordance with s 476B of the Migration Act as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) and the Federal Court of Australia do not have jurisdiction.6
In addition to an extension of time to file the application for a constitutional or other writ, Mr Lama seeks: a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the delegate to refuse Mr Lama the Visa; a writ of mandamus requiring the Minister to decide the application according to law; and ancillary relief. The writ identifies a single ground: that the delegate failed to consider relevant material, namely a police clearance certificate issued by the AFP, when determining whether Mr Lama met reg 2.03AA of the Regulations.
"i. I acknowledge I have read all the instructions while completing this application and I am aware exclusions from spent convictions legislation may apply to some categories of NPCs.
...
iv. I consent to the AFP and any other Australian police force extracting details of any convictions, findings of guilt or pending court proceedings relating to me, including in relation to any traffic offence, and providing that information to me or to the Employer/Organisation named in Section 6.
v. I acknowledge the information provided in this application will not be used without my prior consent for any other purpose, unless otherwise authorised by law." (emphasis added)
The application raises two issues: first, the proper construction of reg 2.03AA(2)(a) and, second, whether the Code 35 NPC provided by Mr Lama responded to the delegate's request and satisfied reg 2.03AA(2)(a).
It is common ground that Mr Lama did not provide the Code 33 NPC that was requested by the delegate.
Counsel for Mr Lama properly accepted that a purpose of the request by the delegate under reg 2.03AA(2)(a) for a statement from an appropriate authority about a person's criminal history was to enable the delegate to obtain evidence about whether or not the applicant for a visa has a criminal history.7 Mr Lama did not contest the Minister's submission that this requires a comprehensive account of the applicant's criminal history including spent convictions, but submitted that the regulation does not prescribe how that information is to be provided, and that the Code 35 NPC he provided on 26 September 2023 was capable of satisfying reg 2.03AA(2)(a).
Mr Lama submitted that, although the NPCs have two different titles, in practice they are materially the same and both provide complete accounts of a person's criminal history, including spent convictions. That submission is based on an assertion that the information that will be released for both the Code 33 NPC and Code 35 NPC checks include spent convictions because both specify "[a]ll Commonwealth offences. Other State/Territory offences as legislation permits" in the AFP NPC application form. Mr Lama also submitted that, where he provided a Code 35 NPC, it was not open to the delegate not to consider the substance of that NPC. Mr Lama submitted that the delegate's error in rejecting the Code 35 NPC by reference to its heading was a material error because the delegate should have concluded that the Code 35 NPC was a full disclosure of Mr Lama's criminal history.
In response, counsel for the Minister submitted that under reg 2.03AA(2)(a), if the Minister or their delegate decided to request specific documents or information that provides evidence of an applicant's criminal history, so long as that request was properly characterised as a request under reg 2.03AA(2)(a), the applicant was required to provide documents or information of that kind and in the form requested. And the failure of Mr Lama to do so was a complete answer to Mr Lama's application for a constitutional writ.
Counsel for the Minister further submitted that the NPC Mr Lama in fact provided did not substantively respond to the delegate's request because the document that Mr Lama requested and provided to the Department, being the Code 35 NPC, did not evidence Mr Lama's complete criminal history.
That latter submission requires some further explanation. As an applicant acknowledges when completing the AFP NPC application form, the applicant must: provide their consent to their criminal history being disclosed in an NPC and, in so doing, (i) expressly acknowledge that "exclusions from spent convictions legislation "; (ii) consent to the AFP and any other Australian police force extracting details of any convictions, findings of guilt or pending court proceedings relating to the applicant, including in relation to any traffic offence, and to the applicant or of the AFP NPC application form; and (iii) finally, acknowledge that the information provided in the application will not be used without the applicant's prior consent for any other purpose, unless authorised by law. The three limbs are interconnected. The applicant's consent to and acknowledgement of these matters reinforces that the form and purpose of the NPC requested will necessarily determine not only the entity to which the NPC will be directed but what is disclosed.
(1) The Visa was refused on 22 January 2024 but Mr Lama did not become aware until 14 February 2024 as the email with the refusal went to his spam folder.
(2) Mr Lama lodged his application for merits review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 19 February 2024 after becoming aware of the delegate's decision. The application for merits review was out of time.
(3) Mr Lama sought legal advice from several different agencies after becoming aware of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal having no jurisdiction. However, Mr Lama was dealing with a separate legal matter that he focused on finalising first due to its seriousness.
(4) Mr Lama did not initially get advice that he could appeal his matter to the High Court. On 30 July 2024, Mr Lama engaged lawyers who advised him of the possibility of making an application to this Court. Once they formed the view the application to this court had reasonable prospects of success, Mr Lama instructed them to lodge an application.
(5) This explanation for delay is satisfactory considering the novel legal issue and complexity of lodging an application in this Court.
The plaintiff's single proposed ground of review – that the delegate failed to consider relevant material, namely a police clearance certificate issued by the AFP, when determining whether Mr Lama met reg 2.03AA – does not disclose an arguable basis for relief. It may be accepted that Mr Lama provided a Code 35 NPC issued by the AFP and that the delegate rejected that certificate.
However, as the Minister submitted, there are two responses to Mr Lama's application. First, as a matter of construction, reg 2.03AA(1), in its terms, provides that where a person, such as Mr Lama, is required to satisfy the public interest criteria 4001 for the grant of a visa, then reg 2.03AA(2) "prescribes" that:
"If the Minister has requested the following documents or information, the person has provided the documents or information:
(a) a statement (however described) provided by an appropriate authority in a country where the person resides, or has resided, that provides evidence about whether or not the person has a criminal history" (emphasis added)
Here, the delegate prescribed Code 33 NPC from the AFP because that form of NPC provided the delegate with evidence by an appropriate authority in Australia (where Mr Lama resided) of whether or not Mr Lama has a criminal history. There was nothing to suggest that the AFP was not an appropriate authority or that in making the request the delegate was not acting reasonably.13 Not only did the delegate request a specific document – a Code 33 NPC – on at least three occasions, the delegate provided Mr Lama with the AFP's web address and instructions as to how to obtain a Code 33 NPC.
Second, the difficulty for Mr Lama is that the Code 35 NPC did not, because it could not, provide the information requested in reg 2.03AA(2)(a) of the Regulations. As explained, the extent of the inquiry undertaken and then the extent of the disclosure by the AFP was required to be and was necessarily constrained under a Code 35 NPC compared to that undertaken by the AFP for a Code 33 NPC. The fact remains that, for the purpose of the check being undertaken by the delegate under the Migration Act, Mr Lama did not provide the required documentation that provides evidence about whether or not he has a criminal history.
Migration Act, s 65(1). ↩
Clause 485.213(1) of Sch 2 to the Regulations. ↩
Clause 485.216 of Sch 2 to the Regulations. ↩
The application for a constitutional or other writ filed by the applicant incorrectly referred to this document as being an "Overseas Visa – Supply to a Country other than Australia – Name Check Only", referred to in these reasons as a "Code 35 National Police Certificate or Code 35 NPC". ↩
The Department also requested that Mr Lama provide a Form 1221 headed "Additional personal particulars information"; a Form 80 headed "Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment"; and police clearance certificates from each country where Mr Lama had lived for a total of 12 months or more in the last 10 years. ↩
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has no jurisdiction in relation to a "primary decision": see ss 338(2), 476(2)(a), 476(4), 476B(3) of the Migration Act. Further, the decision is not within the limited jurisdiction conferred on the Federal Court by s 476A(1)(b) or (c) of the Migration Act. ↩
See also Explanatory Statement, Migration Amendment (2014 Measures No. 2) Regulation 2014, at 1 and Attachment C under the heading "Item [3] - After regulation 2.03A". ↩
Spent Convictions Act 2021 (Vic), ss 20(1)(c) and 22(1) read with s 3 definition of "law enforcement agency". ↩
Spent Convictions Act 2009 (SA), ss 11(1) and 13(1), Sch 1 item 2(c). ↩
Lama
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCASJ 13
(2015) 90 ALJR 89
(2013) 249 CLR 332
(1997) 190 CLR 1
The plaintiff's application for a constitutional or other writ was dismissed with costs.
In support of the application for the constitutional or other writ, Mr Lama's solicitor filed an affidavit in this Court exhibiting a copy of the AFP NPC application form. The form contains nine sections: 1 (Type of check required); 2 (Fingerprints (Optional)); 3 (Details of Applicant); 4 (Other names you have used); 5 (Current & Previous Residential Addresses); 6 (Mailing Address for Police Certificate); 7 (Payment Details); 8 (Purpose of Check); and 9 (Applicant's consent). For present purposes, it is sufficient to focus on sections 8 and 9.
In Section 8, "Purpose of Check", the form states that "[i]f the purpose for your NPC is not listed or you are unsure please call the National Police Check Help Desk" on an identified number during specified hours. A number of codes are then listed. The "Commonwealth Employment / Purpose" for each code is specified. Relevantly, the form records:
It was common ground that, in substance, although the spent convictions legislation in Victoria,8 South Australia9 and Tasmania10 prohibit disclosure of spent convictions, each Act contains an exception for immigration or citizenship checks by the Department, but that exception does not extend to immigration or citizenship checks by a foreign government.
In other words, by applying for a Code 35 NPC, Mr Lama provided his consent for his criminal history to be disclosed only for the more limited extent that the State and Territory laws permitted disclosure to a country other than Australia. Put another way, Mr Lama did not consent to disclosure of his criminal history, to the extent permitted by law, for the purpose of immigration checks by the Department.
Mr Lama's response was that the exemptions are not relevant as in applying for a NPC, a person makes a request for their own criminal history to be provided directly to them and that Mr Lama could have been provided with his own criminal history (including spent convictions). That does not assist Mr Lama because the consent he provided to the AFP for the release of his criminal history was constrained. The fact remains he applied for a Code 35 NPC – a form that is received by the AFP when a person wants to obtain their criminal history for the particular purpose of supply to an overseas country. Unfortunately, that was not the purpose for which Mr Lama needed an NPC. And, as has been explained, the different purposes of the different forms meant different inquiries by, and restrictions on, the AFP and therefore a different NPC being provided by the AFP.
Annulled Convictions Act 2003 (Tas), s 11(2) and (3) read with s 3(1) definition of "Justice Agency". ↩
The application was required to be brought within 35 days of the refusal decision, which would have been 26 February 2024: s 486A(1) of the Migration Act read with the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 25.02.2(b). ↩
Vella v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection (2015) 90 ALJR 89 at 90 [3]; 326 ALR 391 at 392. ↩
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at 351 [29], 362 [63], 370 [88]. See also Kruger v The Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1 at 36. ↩