BSP19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1787

FedCFamC2G|2025-10-31

The applicant has not established that the Tribunal's decision is affected by jurisdictional error.
As the applicant is unrepresented, I am required to consider whether any arguable substantive jurisdictional error in the decision sought to be reviewed arises from the material before me: see MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392 at [112] and [113]; DQQ17 at [9]-[10] and BSQ17 at [27]. I am satisfied that no arguable substantive jurisdictional error arises from my review of the Tribunal decision in this matter.
The application is dismissed.

The first respondent seeks costs fixed in the sum of $6,000. I consider the amount sought by the is reasonable for this type of matter. I will make an order for the amount sought by the first respondent against the applicant.

I certify that the preceding sixty-two (62) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Cleary.

Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025

BSQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 943

DNK17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 975

DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784

LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 98 ALJR 610

Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3; (2019) 264 CLR 421

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2012] HCA 61; (2013) 249 CLR 332

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI [2009] HCA 39

MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392

SZRUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 146; (2013) 216 FCR 445

WZATH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCCA 612

At a glance