Unreasonable

What do you think of these facts:

19. At the hearing on 9 November 2012, the Tribunal agreed to wait until close of business on 31 December 2012 to receive the results of the IELTS tests which the first respondent had booked on 17 November 2012 and 1 December 2012. In its own words, the “Tribunal said it would not agree to wait for further evidence after that date, as he made his visa application over 2 years before and he has had many opportunities to sit several English language tests”.
20. The Tribunal’s deadline of 31 December 2012 passed without the first respondent communicating with the Tribunal. However, the next day, 1 January 2013, the first respondent sent a facsimile to the Tribunal, attaching his test results and a letter. The results showed he had achieved the requisite marks in the December test on all topics except the topic of “Listening”, where he scored 5.0. In his letter to the Tribunal, the first respondent wrote:

Dear MRT representative,

Please find faxed documents in support of my above mentioned MRT Case No.: 1205119. I am sending copies of Test Report Card for IELTS tests taken by me on 17/11/2012 and 1/12/2012. Please be advised that I am going to apply for reevaluation/rechecking of test result for the test taken by me on 1/12/2012 and I hope to get the required result (i.e. enough to prove that I have competent English) for the same after reevaluation/rechecking.

21. On 3 January 2013, the Tribunal sent to the first respondent’s migration agent a letter informing the first respondent that it “has declined to grant any additional time” and that it would “now proceed to a decision”.

If you think the MRT's decision not to give an adjournment was unreasonable, you are not alone. This is the same view that the Full Federal Court came to in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1 

Creative commons acknowledgement for the photograph.