ELW18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2040

In paragraph 34 above I set out a summary of the applicant's oral submissions at the hearing in this Court on 20 November 2025. None of the submissions identified an error, let alone a jurisdictional error, in the IAA's decision.
For the above reasons, the Amended Application must be dismissed.

FedCFamC2G|2025-12-10

The applicant has not explained how this cumulative analysis was not real or sufficient. I am not persuaded the IAA erred in considering the applicant's claims cumulatively.
For the above reasons, ground 3 does not identify a jurisdictional in the IAA's decision.

Written submission annexed to affidavit lodged on 17 October 2025

The applicant's affidavit lodged on 17 October 2025 attaches a document titled "Final written submission with annexures". The written submission is contained in a one page letter titled "Statement in support of judicial review application" and is effectively a summary by the applicant of his claims for protection. The document does not attempt to identify an error in the IAA's decision.

In paragraph 34 above I set out a summary of the applicant's oral submissions at the hearing in this Court on 20 November 2025. None of the submissions identified an error, let alone a jurisdictional error, in the IAA's decision.
For the above reasons, the Amended Application must be dismissed.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I invited submissions from the parties on costs. Mr Reilly sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the scale amount of $9,097.93. Mr Reilly stated that this amount was less than the costs actually incurred by the first respondent. I consider that the amount sought by the first respondent is reasonable. I will make an order in this amount.

I certify that the preceding sixty-five (65) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser.

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

(a) I consider that, on a fair reading of the submission from the applicant's representative, the representative did not ask the IAA to consider the hyperlinked articles. The representative merely asked the IAA to consider the two propositions in respect of which the hyperlinked articles were footnotes. The IAA had no obligation to consider information it was not asked to consider.

(b) Even if the submission included an implicit request by the representative that the IAA consider the hyperlinked articles, as stated in the first respondent's written submission at RS [24], with reference to DHJ16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2021] FCA 364 at [29], this aspect of the submission did not comply with paragraphs 24 to 26 of the Practice Direction (which was provided by the IAA to the applicant on 30 October 2017 - see CB 167-179), and so these articles did not need to be considered by the IAA: see s 473FB(5) [of the Act]".

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (6 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)