Al Mawla v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2166

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. These are the reasons for judgment delivered ex tempore on 23 December 2025, revised from transcript only to include extracts of cited documents and to correct typographical errors or minor matters to reflect the intention of the Court.
2. This is an urgent application for an interim injunction seeking to restrain the respondent, the Minister, from taking any steps to remove the applicant from Australia following the cancellation of his Student (Subclass 500) visa (visa).
3. The applicant is a citizen of Lebanon, and he was granted the student visa on 3 August 2022 to study a Bachelor of Engineering degree, with honours, at Deakin University. On 20 December 2025, the applicant departed Australia en route to Thailand for a holiday with his extended family. On arrival in Indonesia, and in transit to Thailand, it was discovered that he did not have an approved visa to permit him to enter Thailand as a tourist or visitor. His uncle then paid for his return ticket to Australia.
4. Upon arrival at Brisbane, on 21 December 2025, at approximately 5:50am, the applicant was interviewed by officers of Australian Border Force, which conducted an interview with the applicant over a period of several hours. A delegate of the Minister then made a decision, pursuant to s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to cancel the applicant's visa (Decision). The applicant was then taken into immigration detention in Brisbane, and is currently held in detention, pending removal and return to Lebanon.
5. The applicant has been told, and he fears, that steps will be taken to return him to Lebanon this evening, and he fears returning to Lebanon due to war in the region and uncertainty as to his living arrangements. It has also been raised as a factor in consideration of the balance of convenience that, if the applicant is removed to Lebanon, his right to return to Australia will be removed for a period of 12 months.
6. The applicant claims that the cancellation of his student visa was erroneous, and perhaps capricious or unreasonable. He claims that he has a case for review and the issuing of prerogative writs. At 12:47pm today, the applicant, with assistance from his solicitor, Ms Ford, filed an originating application in this Court, together with two affidavits, also affirmed today. The affidavit was affirmed by Ms Ford, who annexed a copy of the Decision and other relevant documents, and an affidavit by the applicant affirmed today in which he explained the circumstances in which the Decision to cancel the visa were made and the interviews he had with the delegate of the Minister and others.
7. A further affidavit affirmed today by Mr Corey Zammit, friend of the applicant, was filed shortly before the hearing today. In that affidavit, Mr Zammit referred to a conversation with an officer of the Brisbane Immigration Detention Centre to the effect that it was expected that the applicant would be removed from Australia to Lebanon this evening, or early tomorrow morning. An urgent hearing was convened by the Court via video link this afternoon. Mr Aleksov of counsel appeared for the applicant and Mr Byrnes of counsel appeared for the Minister. The parties made submissions as to the circumstances in which an interim injunction should be granted.
8. The principles upon which an interim and interlocutory injunction may be granted are clear and well established. They are that the applicant must establish a serious question to be tried, or at least a prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an injunction and the preservation of the status quo. In assessing the balance of convenience, the Court may also take into account whether damages are an appropriate remedy. Having considered the affidavit material and the submissions of the parties, including the respondent's outline of written submissions that was provided during the course of the hearing, I am satisfied that the applicant has established a serious question to be tried, or at least a prima facie case for relief regarding the cancellation of his visa.
9. The serious question is whether the power to cancel has been improperly exercised and/or the delegate has failed to take into account relevant claims or information available to the applicant and to the delegate. The balance of convenience is very much, in my view, in favour of preserving the status quo pending the further hearing of this application. Damages would not be an appropriate remedy, and the consequences of returning the applicant to Lebanon are severe in circumstances where the applicant has not been given the opportunity to exercise his full rights of review. Added to this is the concern expressed on behalf of the applicant by his solicitor and Mr Aleksov that his rights of return to Australia will be limited under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
10. I have also considered the Minister's submissions to the effect that there is no serious question to be tried, and that the power to cancel has been properly exercised by the delegate of the Minister in the circumstances. However, given the urgency of this case and the circumstances as they appear on affidavit, I am, as I have said, satisfied that there is at least a prima facie case and reason for this matter to proceed further, and that the balance of convenience is firmly in favour of the applicant.
11. In the circumstances, the interests of justice weigh heavily in favour of granting injunctive relief, at least on an interim basis, to prevent the applicant's removal from Australia.

I certify that the preceding eleven (11) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Corbett.