Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FC

Australian Migration Law
Name
Affiliation
Instructor
Date

Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FC
The greatest implication of this case is that one has to file his applications in time at the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal or forfeit the application. The appeal herein led to the
determination that the decision arrived at in Beni v Minister for Immigration and Anor
[2018] FCCA 756 was incorrect because an extension of time has not been provided for
especially when one is filling his or her applications. This applies to applications at the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal in issues surrounding migration. Further, these applications
apply to those that are made for the first time and their decisions are needed for the first
time too by the DOHA. In short, the decision in the Beni case should not be followed. The
facts of the case are that the court did not have the jurisdiction of making a review of the
decisions made by the minister especially in the application for visas. The circumstances are
that the filing was done under the required timeline as stipulated by section 347(1) (b),
Migration Act 1958, (Hoang, 2018). 7 days have been set by the regulations after an
applicant has been served with the decision. Similarly, the decision was sent through an
email within the same day.
The requirement to file an application within the specified time is what applicants have to
adhere to. In case this is not done, the Tribunal does not have any form of discretion to
change the time limit by extending it or waiving the requirement for more time. Issues of
the time were raised in the case and this relates to a determination of how to measure that
a document was sent or receive. According to the Commonwealth laws, one is presumed to
have sent an electronic communication as soon as he or she dispatches it. This also applies

to the time a recipient of the message receives it-the addressee, (Ghezelbhash et al., 2018).
In regards to whether one has received a document or not, one is seen to have received it
when the message is in a retrievable manner and the addressee can be able to read the
information contained. Secondly, this is determined by its ability to arrive at the address
provided by the addressee.
Transitional provisions are essential in the explanation of certain regulations. In this case,
section 15 (2) of the AAT Act provides for the non-extension of time. In this case, applicants
should not file applications for extension of time before the Tribunal. This is especially when
one’s time for applying had expired. In addition, there is no enactment or regulation. The
time to make an application is something that has to be taken seriously by Visa applicants.
This can determine whether one is granted a visa or not, (Muniroh et al., 2018). The time
used during application is a critical element because this denies one the opportunity
especially when an applicant has fulfilled all the requirements. This was also established in
the case of Khan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection where the extension of
time is a misconception amongst many applicants and this is a source of disappointment for
many.
There are different elements that have to be taken into consideration too such as
cancellation and time limits that were discussed in the case. It is essential to seek advice
when an application is being made so that this application is made early and within the
specified time limit. In situations where one has received a sponsorship, cancellation, visa
refusal or nomination and feels that the decision should be reviewed, he or she has to make
a formal application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as usual as long as the
application is done within the stipulated time, (Dowd et al., 2018). Negative decisions can be