DHA Request for
Further Information

There is no right to be heard — and three provisions that protect you instead

Subdivision AB of the Migration Act is headed “Code of procedure for dealing fairly, efficiently and quickly with visa applications”, and it is deliberately narrow.

Section 54(3) provides that a decision to grant or refuse a visa may be made without giving the applicant an opportunity to make oral or written submissions. That is the provision that defeats the assumption of a hearing. What replaces it is a combination:

• Section 54(1) and (2) The Minister must have regard to all the information in the application — what is set out in it, what was attached when it was made, and anything given under section 55.

• Section 55(1) Until the decision is made, the applicant may give additional relevant information, and the Minister must have regard to it. Unsolicited material lodged before the decision cannot be ignored.

• Section 57 Where the defined category of adverse relevant information exists, and the conditions in s 57(3) are met, particulars must be given, relevance explained and comment invited.

Section 55 cuts both ways. Material lodged before the decision must be considered — but section 55(2) says that does not require the Minister to delay a decision because the applicant might give further information, or has said they intend to. Telling the Department that more is coming buys nothing. Sending it does.

If the applicant is offshore, the Act is not the whole story

Section 51A says Subdivision AB is “an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule” — and then adds five words that decide the question: “in relation to the matters it deals with”.

In Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23 the High Court fastened on exactly those words. Because section 57 deals only with providing relevant information to onshore applicants, Subdivision AB does not deal with offshore applicants at all — so section 51A does not exclude the common law hearing rule for them, and common law procedural fairness continues to apply. The Minister was obliged to give the applicant an opportunity to answer adverse material.

So the accurate statement is this. For an onshore applicant with review rights, sections 56 to 58 are the whole of the hearing rule. For an offshore applicant, section 57 does not apply, and the common law fills the gap. Copy that says “the Migration Act replaces natural justice” is wrong, and Saeed is the authority that says so.

Where the deadline comes from — and why you must read the letter

The response period for an invitation under section 58 is prescribed by regulation 2.15. Not regulation 2.16, which is a different provision entirely — it governs how the Minister must notify you of the decision. The confusion between the two is widespread and produces diary errors.

Regulation 2.15 does not set one period. It sets different periods depending on how the invitation was given — at an interview or otherwise — where the applicant is, and in some cases which visa class is involved. Where no period is prescribed, section 58 requires “a reasonable period”.

Which is why the only safe approach is the simplest one: the invitation letter states the period, and the letter governs. We ask for it, and we work to the date on it rather than to a number from a template.

The clock runs from notification — and notification is deemed. Under regulation 5.03, a notice sent within Australia to an Australian address is taken to be received seven days after its date; a notice sent to or from outside Australia is taken to be received twenty-one days after its date. The period starts then — not on the day the client says they opened the email. On a short response period this is the difference between a response in time and a response that arrives after the decision.

What happens if you miss it

Section 56 contains no consequence provision, because the consequence sits elsewhere. Section 62 is headed “Failure to receive information does not require action”, and section 63 governs when a decision about a visa may be made.

Read with section 54(3) and section 55(2), the effect is plain: the Department has no obligation to wait, no obligation to allow submissions, and no obligation to delay. The deadline in the invitation is effectively the end of the applicant’s opportunity, and a decision taken after it is not reviewable on the ground that more material was on its way.

In practice the Department does grant further time on request. That is practice, not entitlement, and it is not something to plan a response around.

The response that works, and the one that does not

A section 56 or section 57 letter tells you exactly what the delegate is unsatisfied about. It is the most useful document in a file, and it is routinely answered badly.

The response that fails answers in general terms, or supplies documents without saying what they establish, or deals with four of five points and hopes the fifth is forgotten. Where the letter is a section 57 invitation, a response that does not engage with the specific adverse information and the Department’s stated reason for its relevance has not answered it at all.

Each point gets its own answer, in the order the request made them. The evidence supporting each is identified by name and by page. And where the material does not fully answer a point, the response says what the position is and why, rather than leaving the delegate to work it out and draw the unfavourable inference.

• A written response addressing every point of the request in the order it was made

• A schedule of the evidence supplied, cross-referenced to the points it answers

• Any supporting analysis the request calls for — salary, position, business structure or labour market testing, prepared as a separate report where the request warrants it

• Treatment of adverse information where the letter is a section 57 invitation, addressed on the Department’s own stated grounds of relevance

• A covering summary the delegate can read first, with the schedule behind it

The mechanics nobody mentions

A bulky response runs into real operational limits in ImmiAccount, and finding them out on the due date is avoidable.

The maximum file size for each attachment is 5MB, and the maximum number of files that can be attached ranges from 30 to 60 depending on the application type. Each attachment needs a document type from the dropdown and a brief description, and the only confirmation the system gives is the status field changing from Required to Received.

For a response with sixty exhibits and scanned financials, that shapes the whole deliverable: fewer, well-indexed, correctly compressed PDFs with the schedule doing the navigation, rather than one file per document and a scramble at the limit. And any document in another language has to be accompanied by an English translation — which takes its own time.

Deadlines, and how we work to them

These arrive with a date attached. Send the request itself with the form, along with the application as lodged, and tell us the due date and the date the letter is dated — both, because the deemed receipt rules may have started the clock earlier than you think.

We come back within one business day with a fixed price and a delivery date, or with the news that the deadline cannot be met. We would rather tell you that before you pay than after. Where an extension has been sought or granted, tell us — it changes what is possible.

What we do, and what we do not. Zeolla Solutions prepares the response documentation and the supporting evidence reports. We are not a law practice and not a registered migration agent, and we do not provide immigration assistance or immigration advice. We do not advise on prospects or strategy, we do not settle the response, and we do not correspond with the Department on anyone’s behalf. Your registered migration agent or legal practitioner settles it and lodges it. This page is general information current at October 2026.