Section 57 Natural Justice
Section 57 of the Migration Act 1958 requires the Department to notify applicants and invite their comment before visa refusal, ensuring procedural fairness.
Section 57 Natural Justice Overview
Section 57 of the Migration Act 1958 ensures that visa applicants are given procedural fairness, also known as the “right to be heard,” before the Department makes an adverse decision. It applies when the Department has information that may negatively affect the outcome of the visa application, and the applicant was not previously aware of it.
This provision is a critical safeguard against unfair administrative decisions, giving applicants the chance to clarify misunderstandings, provide additional evidence, or refute incorrect assumptions.
Key Components of a Natural Justice Letter
Contents of the Letter
An ‘Invitation to Comment on Adverse Information’ under Section 57 of the Migration Act 1958, informing the applicant that the Department holds information which may lead to visa refusal.
The letter outlines the specific adverse information or discrepancies that the decision-maker considers relevant to the visa outcome.
The applicant is invited to respond within a set timeframe (usually 7–28 days) before a decision is made.
Response Expectations
The applicant must provide a clear, truthful, and comprehensive explanation addressing each issue raised in the letter.
Supporting evidence (e.g. statutory declarations, updated documents, or clarifications) should be included to strengthen the response.
Avoid excessive or irrelevant information, which may weaken the applicant’s credibility.
Common Adverse Information Examples
Allegations of providing false or misleading information in the application (e.g., employment or relationship evidence).
Concerns raised by third parties such as employers, education providers, or police reports.
Inconsistencies between documents, interviews, and previous visa applications.
New adverse information from external agencies (e.g., police, Department of Employment, or Home Affairs’ internal verification).
Practical Tips When Responding
Ensure all statements are consistent with previous visa records and documents.
If errors exist, acknowledge them honestly and provide a clear explanation instead of ignoring them.
Organize your evidence logically, label your attachments, and cross-reference them in your written submission.
Avoid emotional language — focus on facts, timelines, and supporting documents.
Timeframe for Response
Standard Period
Typically, the applicant is given 28 days to respond to the Natural Justice Letter.
Variations Based on Circumstances
-
In certain situations, like immigration detention, the period might be shorter, e.g., 3 working days.
-
Failure to respond within the stipulated timeframe allows the Delegate to decide on the application without further input, often leading to visa refusal.
Outcomes
Visa Grant Notification:
- If the applicant successfully addresses the concerns raised in the Natural Justice Letter, providing accurate and comprehensive information, and effectively rectifies any discrepancies, this could lead to a positive decision, and the applicant may receive a notification of visa grant.
Visa Refusal or Cancellation Notification:
If the applicant fails to adequately address the concerns, provides false or misleading information in their response, or if the Department’s initial concerns are substantiated, this could lead to a negative decision, and the applicant may receive a notification of visa refusal or cancellation.
In severe cases, especially involving fraudulent documents or significant misrepresentation, not only may the visa be refused or cancelled, but the applicant may also face a re-entry ban (usually 12 months under Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4020), affecting future visa applications.
Strategic Withdrawal:
- In certain situations, if the applicant realizes that the concerns raised are substantial and difficult to counter, they may consider strategically withdrawing their application. This move can be advised to avoid the potentially more severe consequences of having the application refused, such as a Section 48 bar or an exclusion period (re-entry ban).
Link to PIC 4020 Relationship:
- While Section 57 gives applicants the opportunity to comment on adverse information, Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020 governs how false or misleading information is treated in visa assessments. If a PIC 4020 breach is confirmed, the applicant may face a visa refusal and a 12-month re-entry ban, even if they later correct the record.
It’s important to note that each case is unique and the specific circumstances will determine the most appropriate course of action. Professional legal advice is highly recommended to navigate this complex process and ensure the best possible outcome.
After the Decision
If your visa is refused, you may have the right to appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) within the prescribed period (usually 21 days).
If you are holding a Bridging Visa A or C, your visa will generally remain valid for 35 days after the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) makes its decision, but you must continue to comply with all visa conditions during this period.
If you do not appeal within the timeframe, your bridging visa may cease after 35 days, making you unlawful in Australia.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the Department already suspects me, is the decision basically made?
Can I fix earlier mistakes through the Section 57 response?
What if the Department’s adverse information is wrong?
Does hiring a migration agent actually help with Section 57?
Can I just withdraw my visa application to avoid a refusal?
Why did I receive Section 57 instead of a simple ‘Request for Information’?
Can I ignore irrelevant accusations and only respond to what I think matters?
Does the Department ever make mistakes when issuing Section 57 letters?
If I respond perfectly, is approval guaranteed?
Can a Section 57 process be challenged for unfairness?
Yes. If the Department failed to disclose the full adverse material, gave insufficient time, or relied on undisclosed evidence, you may challenge it under “procedural unfairness” grounds, even at judicial review.
Note: This FAQ is general information only and not legal advice. Settings (e.g., eligibility tests, exemptions, and evidentiary rules) can change; always check the latest legislative instruments before applying.
