DAC19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1163

1. Before this Court is an application for judicial review of a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal).
2. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (as the Minister was then called) (Delegate), to refuse to grant the Applicant (Primary Applicant) a Protection (subclass 866) visa (Protection Visa). Because the visa application of the Second Applicant in this proceeding was dependant on the Primary Applicant's visa application, their application was also refused.
3. This proceeding was brought pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act). The application was filed within the 35-day time period prescribed under the Act.
4. This matter was:

(a) allocated to the Court as presently constituted on 3 June 2025

(b) listed for hearing on 3 June 2025, and

(c) heard on 15 July 2025 and proceeded in person at the Court's Melbourne Registry.

1. To obtain relief from this Court, the Primary Applicant must show that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. For the reasons that follow, the Court as presently constituted has determined that no jurisdictional error arises from the Tribunal's decision.
2. The application for judicial review is, accordingly, dismissed.

1. The background to this matter is derived from the Court Book and submissions of the parties and, unless otherwise indicated, does not appear to be in dispute.

1. The primary issue is whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error in affirming the decision of the Delegate refusing the Primary Applicant a Protection Visa.

1. The Primary Applicant is a citizen of India who arrived on 16 April 2009 in Australia with his spouse as holders of student visas (subclass 572).[1]
2. On 29 March 2011, the Primary Applicant's visa ceased, and he became an unlawful non-citizen.[2] On 20 April 2011, the visa of the Primary Applicant's wife (Second Applicant) ceased.[3]
3. The Applicants have had two children in Australia since arriving from India (now 9 and 7 years old).[4]
4. On 7 August 2017, the Primary Applicant lodged an application for a Protection Visa.[5] The application included his wife. In making their applications the Applicants were assisted by a migration agent.[6] When the Applicants filed their application for a Protection Visa they wrote to the Delegate in the following terms,[7]

"We have taken the advice of our migration agent regarding this and they advised us the prospects of getting this visa approved as minimal. They have also advised us about the possible consequences of lodging this application based on our claims. However, we have decided to go ahead with this application and instructed our agent to assist with the application process."

1. The Applicants' protection claims were attached to the Protection Visa application by way of a written statement and can be summarised as follows:[8]

(a) The Applicants left India because they are part of an inter-caste relationship, the First Primary Applicant is from Uttar Prade community and the Second Applicant is from the Bengal community.

(b) Inter-caste relationships are not tolerated by their respective families and communities. The Applicants' families have made death threats to the Applicants.

(c) There are lots of instances where people of inter-caste relationships are killed by their families or other members of the community.

(d) To be together and avoid the threats and violence they applied for separate Student Visas in Australia.

(e) If the Applicants return to India, their families will be embarrassed, and the Applicants will be subjected to violence and be killed.

(f) The Applicants provided news articles as examples of violence and 'honour killings' in India.

(g) The Applicants experienced harm through being locked in their rooms and being starved for several days. The Applicants suffered significant injuries maintaining the relationship. Further, they have not only been threatened by their respective families but by their communities.

(h) The Applicants sought help from the police and their communities however they did not provide any support. The authorities will not protect them.

(i) The Applicants tried to relocate to the South of India and stayed with friends until their families found out and their benefactors received severe injuries. Their families will find them wherever they go in India.

1. Along with the written statement, the Applicants provided the Delegate with various news articles and reports to support their protection claims.[9]

1. On 11 August 2015, the Applicants were informed that their application may be decided without requesting further information from them. They were then given an opportunity to arrange an interview to discuss their claims. The Applicants did not take up this opportunity.[10]
2. On 28 June 2016, consistent with the prediction made by their migration agent, the Delegate refused to grant the Applicants Protection visas.[11] The Delegate's decision can be summarised as follows:

(a) The Delegate considered country information in detail including information on the treatment of woman, honour killing, inter-religious relationships and state protection.

(b) Beyond the application, there was no evidence to suggest the Primary Applicant is in a genuine and on-going relationship with an Indian national from a different caste.

(c) There was concern about the amount of evidence that was put forward, given the length of time the Applicants have been in Australia.

(d) Accepted that inter-caste relationships are discouraged in India.

(e) Accepted that the Primary Applicant is fearful in returning to his community and that there is a real chance the Primary Applicant will be seriously harmed if he returns to Hyderabad West Bengal.

(f) The harm feared by the Primary Applicant is localised to these areas and the Primary Applicant is open to relocate to another part in India without his family or his partner's family locating the Applicants.

(g) The Primary Applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm if he were to relocate to another state of India and ultimately the fear of persecution is not well-founded.

(h) Further, based on the findings on the refugee criterion, the Delegate was not satisfied there is a real risk that the Primary Applicant will suffer significant harm under the complementary criterion.

1. The Delegate was therefore not satisfied that the Primary Applicant had a real chance of being persecuted for a refugee convention reason under s 36(2)(a), nor that there was a real risk of significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa). The application for a visa was accordingly refused.
2. By operation of s 476(2)(a) of the Act, this Court has no power to review the decision of the Delegate.

1. On 24 July 2016, the Applicants applied to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate's decision.[12]
2. On 25 July 2016, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the application for review and invited the Applicants to provide materials or written submissions in support of the application.[13]
3. On 8 February 2019, the Tribunal invited the Applicants to attend a hearing on 22 February 2019.[14] The Applicants were requested to provide any written submissions or witness statements by 15 February 2019.
4. On 21 February 2019, the Applicants' representative provided a completed response to the hearing invitation, confirming attendance.[15]
5. On 22 February 2019 the Applicants attended the scheduled hearing in person.[16] The Applicants were accompanied by their representative a registered migration agent.[17] At the hearing, the Tribunal received documents of payments from the Applicant's Westpac Bank account to a friend Stanley Pisani.[18]
6. On 11 July 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision not to grant the Applicants the Protection Visas.[19] However, the Tribunal substantively decided the matter on a different basis to the Delegate. The Tribunal was primarily focussed on extensive credibility concerns it had with the Primary Applicant. The issue of whether the Applicants could relocate was not the focus of the Tribunal's decision.

1. The Tribunal's decision is 21 pages long and spans 52 paragraphs.
2. At paragraphs 9 to 14 of the First Respondent's (Minister) submissions filed on 30 June 2025, summarised the Tribunal's reasons. I have carefully read the Tribunal's reasons and accept the Minister's summary as comprehensive, fair and properly referenced. I adopt it for the purposes of this judgment (Court Book citations omitted):

9. The Tribunal set out the delegate's findings and the applicant's evidence at hearing, and noted a number of concerns, including:

9.1 It considered the applicant's lack of curiosity about the differences between his wife and himself "puzzling" and "incompatible with his wider claims", and did not accept his evidence in this regard;

9.2 The applicant's oral evidence as to whether he went to the police to complain about their treatment at the hands of their families "varied considerably" and the applicant contradicted himself, leaving an "impression of invention";

9.3 The applicant's evidence at hearing regarding his trip to Karnataka was "at odds" with his claims to the department, and the alleged typographical error and revised account provided in response contradicted his claim that "[a]ll was going well" until their parents found out where they were living and ruined their plan to lead their lives. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's evidence was misleading and that there was no trip to Karnataka or discovery by the parents; and

9.4 It considered the applicant had provided a "clouded account" of his contact with unnamed friends and had not established more than a "tenuous link" between the sporadic contact and harm he and his family would face if they lived elsewhere in India, and concluded that the applicants had little contact with India, little was known about them there and that it was not apparent how this would change in the reasonably foreseeable future.

10. The Tribunal found the applicant's response, when queried as to whether the parents would be willing to face investigation and prosecution, was "speculative and sweeping". It also found that the applicants were from metropolitan areas, where the country information indicated "the more accepting families tend to live", and this led it to conclude that the applicants' claims about the vengefulness of their families were "less likely to be accurate".

11. The Tribunal found the applicants' delay of some four and a half years in applying for protection to be significant when viewed with the other concerning claims of the applicants, and did not accept that he was ignorant about protection visas until years after arriving in Australia.

12. On the basis of its "extensive" credibility concerns, the Tribunal rejected a number of the applicants' claims, including that they were locked in their rooms and starved for refusing to give up their relationship; they were threatened by locals and suffered injuries; they sought help from the community or local police on several occasions; they tried to escape to Karnataka; they left India because their families and communities failed to accept their relationship or there was an inter-caste dispute and they were afraid they would be killed if they returned; and they eloped.

13. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants would not have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of being persons who have married or entered into a relationship outside of caste, class, ethnicity or race, or any other reason, including religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

14. The Tribunal relied on its anterior findings and was not satisfied that there was a real risk that the applicants would suffer significant harm.

1. Based on the findings made by the Tribunal it was not satisfied that the Primary Applicant was a person whom Australia owed protection obligations to and did not meet s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision to refuse the Primary Applicant the Protection visa.

1. The Primary Applicant filed an application for judicial review on 6 August 2019 (Originating Application). The Originating Application is brought pursuant to s 476 of the Act. The Primary Applicant seeks orders that the decision of the Tribunal be quashed.
2. During the hearing the Court noted that the Originating Application only seeks an order that the Tribunal's decision be quashed.
3. During the hearing the Court noted that to properly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the Applicant's application must also seek a writ of mandamus directed at the Tribunal requiring them to determine the visa application according to law. The Court invited the Primary Applicant to make an oral application to amend the Originating Application. The Primary Applicant did so. The Minister did not object.
4. Consequently, an order was made at the hearing that, pursuant to r 7.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (Rules) the application filed on 6 August 2019 is taken to have been amended to seek a writ of mandamus directed at the Tribunal requiring them to determine the Applicant's application according to law.
5. The Primary Applicant lists 11 grounds of alleged error. The Applicant's grounds of review, extracted from his initiating application, are as follows (reproduced without alteration):

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The decision was made on 11th July 2019. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the Immigration officer to refuse 866 Protection visa.

2. I am brining the Tribunal decision to court apply for Judicial review after 35 days where court may accept my application under the s.477 of the Migration act 1958.

3. The tribunal fell into error when it failed to consider a clearly articulated claims that the I and my family members (Me, my wife & two daughters born in Australia) ta risk owing to my own community on the name of honour killings in India, therefore I believe the tribunal decision has jurisdictional error.

4. The tribunal denied me procedural fairness in failing to assess the protection claims and not giving meaningful consideration of the claims resulting in jurisdictional error

5. In India, our families are from strong traditional group and most of the population doesn't accept the inter caste marriages and our marriage is not being accepted by both side parents and by community. There is huge threat to us and to our beautiful daughters in India.

6. The tribunal misdirected its views. I (we) claimed that we would ger limited support from authorities and that support would not help us much and always to secure us in India. Therefore, the Tribunal failed to give meaningful consideration of our claims and directed its inquiries to a different question during the hearing and the tribunal had confused us and tribunal went into confusion.

7. The tribunal fell into error by failing to properly consider and assess the submitted references, tribunal ignored the claims regarding references and failed to have proper regard to the document provided resulting in jurisdictional error.

8. Also the Tribunal failed to take into account my explanation and my wife explanation, whole hearing tribunal was suspecting that we doing internationally, it wasn't fair at all.

9. I hope federal circuit court will check our grounds, and the grounds would succeed. I propose, therefore, I request the Federal circuit court of Australia registrar to accept my Judicial review application.

10. I believe, delegate and tribunal have erred in assessing my application, both are responsible in my matter.

11. I believe Federal circuit court have jurisdiction in this matter. I hope natural justice would be served to us and to my little innocent daughters born in Australia by court in this matter. Hoping the right justice by court.

1. On 14 August 2019, the Minister filed a response and opposed the making of the orders sought by the Applicant. The Minister submitted that the application failed to articulate or establish any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
2. On 26 October 2021, the Minister filed a bundle of relevant documents (Court Book).
3. On 13 September 2024, a Registrar of this Court issued an Order (Registrar's Order) directing the:

(a) Applicant to file any amended application with proper particulars, written submissions and further evidence by at least 28 days before the hearing

(b) Minister to file any written submissions and further evidence in reply by at least 14 days before the hearing

1. The Primary Applicant did not file an amended application and nor did he provide further particulars of the grounds for judicial review, despite being invited to do so. The failure of the Primary Applicant to do so was confirmed with him during the hearing on 15 July 2025. The consequence of the Applicant's decision not to file any further material was that he was confined to the grounds of review contained in the Originating Application.
2. On 30 June 2025, the Minister complied with the Registrar's Order by filing written submissions.
3. Therefore, the materials before the Court are as follows:

(a) the application for judicial review filed 6 August 2019

(b) the Affidavit filed 6 August 2019 deposed by the Primary Applicant

(c) a Court Book numbering 230 pages filed 26 October 2021 (marked as Exhibit R1),

(d) an outline of written submissions filed by the Minister on 30 June 2025.

1. At the hearing, the Primary Applicant appeared before the Court without legal representation. He attended with the Second Applicant. They were, to the extend required by them, assisted by a Hindi translator. The Minister was represented by Jesse Slankard, a solicitor at Sparke Helmore.
2. The Court confirmed with the Primary Applicant that they had received a copy of the Court Book and the Minister's written submissions.
3. To assist the Applicant, the Court explained that this Court can only turn its attention to the issue of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. The Court explained that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. For migration decisions of this sort, however, they most commonly include (but are not limited to) the following categories:

(a) where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question: Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 ("Craig") at 198;

(b) where the decision-maker ignores relevant material: Craig at 198;

(c) where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material: Craig at 198;

(d) where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures: SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor [2005] HCA 24; (2005) 228 CLR 294 at [207]- [208];

(e) where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias: SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 at [2]; and

(f) where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li [2012] HCA 61; (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]- [28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437 at [44].

1. It was also explained to the Primary Applicant that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal's decision or grant the Primary Applicant the visa they seek. Rather, the role of the Court is restricted to determining if the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at the decision it arrived at: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.
2. The explanations provided to the Primary Applicant were interpreted. Based on the Primary Applicant's responses the Court is confident he properly comprehended the scope and purpose of the hearing.
3. Noting that the Primary Applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave him an opportunity to elaborate on his grounds of review and to outline any other concerns he might have with the Tribunal's decision. This is now the standard procedure in this Court following the decision in Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600 at [7].
4. Before this Court, the Primary Applicant made limited submissions in support of the grounds set out in their application. Those submissions are considered below.
5. The Minister made submissions consistent with the outline of written submissions filed by the Minister on 30 June 2025.
6. After the Minister made their submissions, the Court invited the Primary Applicant to respond to what the Minister's representative had said. The Applicant made further submissions also considered below.

The role of the Court in judicial review proceedings

1. Bhasker v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[20] his Honour Judge Fary summarised the role of the Court in judicial review proceedings:

48. Section 476 of the Migration Act provides that the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court has under s 75(v) of the Constitution.

49. Section 75(v) of the Constitution provides that the High Court has original jurisdiction in all matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. Thus, subject to the statutory exceptions provided for in s 476 of the Migration Act, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has original jurisdiction in all matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. Further, s 474 of the Migration Act does not preclude judicial review of decisions under the Migration Act where jurisdictional error is alleged.[21]

50. "The task of the Court [in an application for judicial review] is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality of the decision by reference to the complaints made about it." The court neither consider the merits of the decision nor remakes it.[22]

51.The Court may grant relief if it is satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is affected by jurisdictional error.[23] Jurisdictional error by a statutory decision maker may manifest itself in a variety of ways. Recognised categories of jurisdictional error include "misunderstanding the applicable law; asking the wrong question; exceeding the bounds of reasonableness; identifying a wrong issue; ignoring relevant material; relying on irrelevant material; in some cases, making an erroneous finding or reaching a mistaken conclusion; or failing to observe some applicable requirement of procedural fairness".[24] Different kinds of error may overlap.[25] The categories are not closed.[26] The critical question is whether the decision maker has exceeded the authority or power conferred by the statute.[27]

52.In most but not all cases, for an error to be jurisdictional, the error must be material to the decision being challenged. The test is whether there is a "realistic possibility" that the decision that was made "could" have been different, but for the error.[28] This is to be determined as "a matter of reasonable conjecture within the parameters set by the historical facts that have been determined".[29] It has been described as an "undemanding" standard.[30]

1. The Court as presently constituted respectfully adopts his Honour's summary of the task before it.
2. Further, disagreement with a decision, even emphatic disagreement, does not of itself give rise to jurisdictional error.[31]

1. At the hearing before the Court, the Primary Applicant was invited to make submissions about:

(a) why he believes the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error; and

(b) each of the 11 grounds of application.

1. To the extent that the Primary Applicant made submissions in relation to the specific grounds, they are summarised below in the context of considering each of the grounds. To the extent that the Primary Applicant made more general submissions, those submissions largely invited the Court to engage in impermissible merits review of the Tribunal's decision. As this Court explained to the Primary Applicant at the hearing, the Court cannot consider for itself whether the Primary Applicant meets the criteria for a Protection Visa. To the extent that the Applicant's submissions invite the Court to engage in merits review, they do not establish jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.
2. The Minister submitted that the decision of the Tribunal was not affected by jurisdictional error. This Court as presently constituted, incorporates (without repetition) paragraphs 16 to 23 of the Minister's outline of submissions.

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The decision was made on 11th July 2019. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the Immigration officer to refuse 866 Protection visa.

1. This is not a proper ground of review. It is background to the matter. Accordingly, ground 1 is dismissed.

2. I am bringing the Tribunal decision to court apply for Judicial review after 35 days where court may accept my application under the s.477 of the Migration act 1958.

1. This is not a proper ground of review. It is background to the matter. Accordingly, ground 2 is dismissed. For completeness, the application was filed within the 35-day time period prescribed under the Act.

3. The tribunal fell into error when it failed to consider a clearly articulated claims that the I and my family members (Me, my wife & two daughters born in Australia) at risk owing to my own community on the name of honour killings in India, therefore I believe the tribunal decision has jurisdictional error.

1. At the hearing, the Court asked the Primary Applicant what he meant by this ground. The Primary Applicant explained that the Tribunal did not understand the seriousness of the caste system and that the decision was unfair given the evidence before the Tribunal.
2. It cannot be established that the Tribunal failed to consider a clearly articulated claim made by the Applicants. The Tribunal clearly did. The Tribunal comprehensively considered the Applicant's claims (oral evidence in the Tribunal Hearing).[32] However, before even assessing the issue of honour killings, the Tribunal stated that it had extensive concerns about the Applicant's credibility.[33] The Tribunal did not accept that the Applicants has been harmed by their families or communities. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there was a real risk that they would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal's assessment demonstrates that it actively engaged with the little evidence advanced by the Applicants, but simply did not believe them. The findings in the Tribunal's Decision[34] were open to it. The Applicant's opposition advanced by ground 3 represents little more than a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings. Disagreement, even strong disagreement, does not establish jurisdictional error. Accordingly, ground 3 is dismissed.

4. The tribunal denied me procedural fairness in failing to assess the protection claims and not giving meaningful consideration of the claims resulting in jurisdictional error

1. The Court asked the Primary Applicant to explain this ground. He said his complaint about a denial of procedural fairness related to the Tribunal not accepting evidence about the caste system. He said he "didn't find fairness in the decision". In this regard the Primary Applicant was making a merit argument. He did not establish jurisdictional error.
2. Any suggestion that the Primary Applicant was more broadly denied procedural fairness must be rejected. The Primary Applicant had every opportunity to put forward his case. On 8 February 2019, the Primary Applicant was invited to a hearing, which he attended on 22 February 2019 with the assistance of a migration agent. Further, the Primary Applicant confirmed to this Court, that at the Tribunal hearing he told the Tribunal about the caste system and the fear he held. Like the anterior ground, the Tribunal clearly considered his claims and made findings which were open to it. Accordingly, ground 4 is dismissed.

5. In India, our families are from strong traditional group and most of the population doesn't accept the inter caste marriages and our marriage is not being accepted by both side parents and by community. There is huge threat to us and to our beautiful daughters in India.

1. This ground goes to the merits of the claim which this Court cannot consider.[35] This ground does not articulate how the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error. Accordingly, ground 5 is dismissed.

6. The tribunal misdirected its views. I (we) claimed that we would get limited support from authorities and that support would not help us much and always to secure us in India. Therefore, the Tribunal failed to give meaningful consideration of our claims and directed its inquiries to a different question during the hearing and the tribunal had confused us and tribunal went into confusion.

1. At the hearing, the Court asked the Primary Applicant what he meant by this ground. The Primary Applicant explained his dissatisfaction with the Tribunal for not focusing on caste issues and directing its questions about other issues. The Tribunal is required to act reasonably in its fact-finding task, including in relation to its findings on the Applicant's credibility.[36] The Tribunal met this requirement by asking questions during the hearing[37], which led to adverse credibility findings and ultimately a rejection of the Applicant's claims. The rejection of the Applicant's claims was a finding open to the Tribunal. Having rejected the Applicants' primary claims about a fear of harm, the Tribunal did not need to consider (and did not found its decision upon) notions of the availability of state protection. No error is revealed in this methodology. Accordingly, ground 6 is dismissed.

7. The tribunal fell into error by failing to properly consider and assess the submitted references, tribunal ignored the claims regarding references and failed to have proper regard to the document provided resulting in jurisdictional error.

1. Before this Court, the Primary Applicant confirmed that "the references" were the Newspaper articles provided to the Tribunal. This Court took the Primary Applicant to pages 219-221 of the Court Book, to confirm that the Tribunal properly considered this evidence. It is clear from the Tribunal's decision that it explicitly considered the media articles about honour killings. The Tribunal found that the Primary Applicant did not engage meaningfully with this evidence[38], and ultimately did not accept the Primary Applicant was at risk of being victim to the same matters in those articles, which were findings the Tribunal was entitled to make. The Primary Applicant accepted he was simply in disagreement with the Tribunal decision, and nothing was put to this Court on how the Tribunal erred. Accordingly, ground 7 is dismissed.

8. Also the Tribunal failed to take into account my explanation and my wife explanation, whole hearing tribunal was suspecting that we doing internationally, it wasn't fair at all.

1. At the hearing, the Court asked the Primary Applicant what he meant by this ground. The Primary Applicant expressed that he put forward his claims at the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal "face-to-face" agreed "on most of the things", yet the decision was unfavourable. The Primary Applicant also brought up the matter of relocation which was a matter of concern for the Delegate and not addressed by the Tribunal who did not accept his claims. The Tribunal comprehensively considered the Applicant's explanations and made findings that it was open to make. The Primary Applicant does not articulate any jurisdictional error in this ground, simply disagreement with the Tribunal. Accordingly, ground 8 is dismissed

9. I hope federal circuit court will check our grounds, and the grounds would succeed. I propose, therefore, I request the Federal circuit court of Australia registrar to accept my Judicial review application.

1. This is not a proper ground of review. It is a request for relief and also invites the Court to engage in impermissible merits review. Accordingly, ground 9 is dismissed.

10. I believe, delegate and tribunal have erred in assessing my application, both are responsible in my matter.

1. This Court cannot review the Delegate's decision.[39] As far as the ground claims that the Tribunal erred, this is a broad statement and lacks particulars. At the hearing, the Court asked the Primary Applicant what he meant by this ground. The Primary Applicant stated the outcome was unfair and disagreed with the Tribunal. The Primary Applicant also submitted that he disagreed with the Tribunal's finding on relocation. As established in ground 8, the Delegate not the Tribunal dealt with this issue. This ground is simply disagreement with the Tribunal and does not establish jurisdictional error. Accordingly, ground 10 is dismissed.

11. I believe Federal circuit court have jurisdiction in this matter. I hope natural justice would be served to us and to my little innocent daughters born in Australia by court in this matter. Hoping the right justice by court.

1. This is not a proper ground of review. It asserts the jurisdiction of the Court and then, like ground 5, invites the Court to engage in impermissible merits review. Before the Court the Primary Applicant made an impassioned argument about the trauma that would be caused to his daughters if the family is removed to India. However, sympathetic the Court might be to what could befall the Applicants' Australian born children who were (very well behaved) in Court, this ground does not articulate how the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error. Accordingly, ground 11 is dismissed.

1. Before this Court the Primary Applicant made additional submissions regarding his investments with a business partner in Australia. These matters post-date the Tribunal decision, are merits-based arguments and as the Primary Applicant conceded in the hearing are "out of context" to the application for judicial review of the Tribunal. While this Court is sympathetic to the Primary Applicant regarding these matters, they cannot be considered by the Court as presently constituted.
2. These additional matters do not establish jurisdictional error and must be dismissed.

1. For the reasons set out above, this Court is satisfied that the Tribunal's reasons were not affected by jurisdictional error.
2. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. The Court will hear the parties on costs.

I certify that the preceding seventy (70) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Johns.

[20] [2025] FedCFamC2G 620

[21] Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476.

[22] Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21 Allson CJ, Besanko and O'Callaghan JJ at [17].

[23] Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476.

[24] LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 418 ALR 152 (LPDT) at [3].

[25] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 2006 CLR 323 at [82].

[27] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 351 at [82].

[29] MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021) 273 CLR 506 per Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ at [38].

[30] Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 276 CLR 80 per Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ (at [33]).

[31] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611; [1999] HCA 21 at [40].

[35] Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272; NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 at [10].

[36]AYC24 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 533.

[39] s 476(2)(a) of the Act.