LML 6006 - Australian Migration Law: Beni v Minister Case Study

This case study examines the implications of the Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 188 case on Australian migration law, particularly concerning the timeliness of applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The case clarifies that the AAT lacks the power to extend application deadlines, emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to the stipulated timeframes outlined in section 347(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958. It highlights the legal presumptions around electronic communication dispatch and receipt, and the non-extendable nature of application times under section 15(2) of the AAT Act. The analysis references other relevant cases like Khan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Brown Vs Minister for Home Affairs, underscoring the necessity of seeking timely advice and lodging applications within the 21 to 28-day window following a negative decision. The study concludes that applicants must prioritize meeting deadlines, as the AAT will not grant extensions, reinforcing the need for diligent and timely application submissions.

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

overturned to the advantage of the applicant as long as this is done accordingly. However,
late applications are not accepted and the tribunal does not have the mandate of extending
the time limits.
Lodgements must be done within a period of 21 to 21 days so that one’s application can be
successful. For this to be done accordingly, the date in which an applicant received his or
her refusal letter. As such, 9 days should be used to measure whether the application will be
in the right time or note, (Howe, Stewart & Owens, 2018). Here, an application must be
made within 9 days from the day that the decision was received by the applicant. In
situations where grounds of character have been considered as per section 501, appeals
should also be done within the period of 9 days.
Judges at times ere on the decisions they make. This was in the case of Brown Vs Minister
for Home Affairs where time was a matter of contention. In this case, Judge Greenwood
held that the AAT has the power to extend the time used for making applications,
(Rutherford, 2018). However, the case of Beni vs the Minister of Home Affairs held during an
appeal that the AAT does not have the power to extend time set for applications. As such,
applicants have the duty of making their applications within the specified time or accept the
decision that has been made on their cases. Also, one should consider that applications
should be in writing and this can be completed through the AAT website platforms as well as
using the AAT email addresses. In short, the desire to have an extension of time cannot
suffice as held in the case.

References
Dowd, R., Hunter, J., Liddell, B., McAdam, J., Nickerson, A., & Bryant, R. (2018). Filling Gaps
and Verifying Facts: Assumptions and Credibility Assessment in the Australian
Refugee Review Tribunal.
International Journal of Refugee Law,
30(1), 71-103.
Ghezelbash, D., Moreno-Lax, V., Klein, N., & Opeskin, B. (2018). Securitization of search and
rescue at sea: the response to boat migration in the Mediterranean and offshore
Australia.
International & Comparative Law Quarterly,
67(2), 315-351.
Hoang, K. (2018). The Rise of Crimmigration in Australia: Importing Laws and Exporting Lives.
In
The Palgrave Handbook of Criminology and the Global South (pp. 797-817).
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Howe, J., Stewart, A., & Owens, R. (2018). Temporary migrant labor and unpaid work in
Australia.
Sydney L. Rev.,
40, 183.
Muniroh, R., Findling, J., & Heydon, G. (2018). What’s in a question: a case for a culturally
appropriate interviewing protocol in the Australian Refugee Review
Tribunal.
Forensic Linguistics: Asylum-seekers, Refugees and Immigrants, 133.
Rutherford, E. (2018). Regulation of the migration advice industry.
Bulletin (Law Society of
South Australia),
40(8), 18.