FCF19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1713

1. By way of Application filed on 10 September 2025, the applicant (Applicant) seeks review of a decision made by a Registrar of this Court, pursuant to s 256 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act) (Registrar Review Application).
2. On 26 August 2025, a Registrar dismissed the Applicant's reinstatement application (Reinstatement Application), which sought reinstatement of his application for judicial review of a decision made by the second respondent (Tribunal) to affirm a decision of a delegate (Delegate) of the first respondent (Minister) not to grant the Applicant a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa (Visa).
3. On 1 September 2025, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (2025 GFL Rules) commenced. As the 2025 GFL Rules are now in force, I am required to apply them and not the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (2021 GFL Rules), that were in force at the date of the Registrar's decision (Registrar's Decision).
4. Rule 3.05 of the 2025 GFL Rules provides that for the purposes of subsection 256(1) of the FCFCOA Act, a party may apply to the Court for review of the exercise of a power by a Registrar. Rule 3.08 of the 2025 GFL Rules provides that the Court must hear an application for review of an exercise of power by a Registrar as a hearing de novo.
5. The hearing of the Registrar Review Application took place at the Melbourne Registry of the Court on 16 October 2025 (Hearing). The Minister was represented by a solicitor. The Applicant was self-represented with the assistance of an interpreter. At the conclusion of the Hearing, judgment was reserved.[1] These are the reasons for judgment in relation to the Hearing.

1. The issue in despite is whether the Applicant has established that it is necessary in the interests of justice to make an order setting aside the Registrar's Decision to dismiss the Reinstatement Application.

1. The Applicant is a citizen of Taiwan.
2. On 23 January 2017, the Applicant applied for the Visa, the subject of these proceedings, on the basis that:[2]

(a) his father was a drug addict who constantly borrowed money from creditors to buy drugs;

(b) he relocated to Taiwan to work and repay his father's debts;

(c) due to the significant nature of the debts, he had to borrow money from other creditors as his earnings did not cover them;

(d) he had various debts owed to different creditors who had abused him; and

(e) he had to leave Taiwan to avoid harm from creditors and that his life would be in danger upon return.

1. On 15 May 2018, a Delegate of the Minister refused to grant the application for the Visa on the basis that the Delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant met s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act) (Delegate's Decision).[3]
2. On 25 May 2018, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review.[4]
3. On 4 November 2019, the Tribunal invited the Applicant to attend a hearing on 27 November 2019.[5]
4. On 12 November 2019, the Applicant's representative (Representative) provided the Tribunal with a response to the hearing invitation form.[6]
5. On 27 November 2019, the Applicant attended the hearing on his own behalf with the assistance of an interpreter.[7]
6. On 29 November 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's Decision (Tribunal's Decision).[8]

1. The Tribunal's Decision is at pages 92 to 97 of the Court Book.
2. The Tribunal first outlined the relevant law to the matter and the purpose of the Tribunal in relation to the Review Application: Tribunal's Decision [1] to [8].
3. The Tribunal identified the dispositive issue before it as whether the Applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
4. The Tribunal did not find the Applicant to be a credible witness.[9] During the hearing, the Applicant explained that he had been "threatened, tortured and taken to a remote place".[10] The Tribunal noted that the Applicant was unable to explain who threatened him or when this had occurred. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not declared in his written claims that he had been abducted. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's evidence was vague[11] and inconsistent with his written claims.[12]
5. The Tribunal had regard to country information which indicated that Taiwan's National Police Administration (NPA) were effective and well-regarded in carrying out law enforcement. The Tribunal had regard to media reports which confirmed that the NPA had carried out nationwide operations on "loan sharking", the kind claimed by the Applicant.[13]
6. The Tribunal found that the Applicant had manufactured all of his claims in relation to a fear of harm.[14] The Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm upon return.[15]

1. On 19 December 2019, the Originating Application was filed in this Court, within 35 days of the date of the Tribunal's Decision pursuant to s 477 of the Migration Act.
2. On 4 February 2022, Orders were made by Registrar Carney of this Court for the matter be listed for final hearing. For the First Respondent to file and serve no later than two weeks from the date of the orders: a Court Book. For the Applicant to file and serve at least 28 days before the hearing: written submissions, any amended application and any additional evidence. For the First Respondent to file and serve at least 14 days before the hearing: written submissions and any additional evidence.
3. On 22 May 2025, the Court listed the matter for callover on 6 June 2025 (Callover).

1. On 6 June 2025, Orders were made by Registrar Foster of this Court for the First Respondent's name be amended to "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship". That the Application for judicial review be dismissed pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the 2021 GFL Rules for non-appearance, with costs (Dismissal Order (Non-Appearance)).

1. On 3 July 2025, the Applicant filed the Reinstatement Application seeking reinstatement of the application for judicial review filed on 19 December 2019.
2. On 18 July 2025, Orders were made by Registrar Foster of this Court for the application in a proceeding filed 3 July 2025 seeking reinstatement of the application for judicial review filed 19 December 2019 be listed for hearing before Judicial Registrar Foster on 26 August 2025. That the Applicant file and serve on or before 1 August 2025: any draft amended application for judicial review, written submissions in support of reinstatement and any affidavit evidence in support of reinstatement. That the First Respondent file and serve on or before 15 August 2025: written submissions in opposition to reinstatement and any affidavit evidence. The Court noted that in determining whether it is in the interests of justice to reinstate the application for judicial review, the Court would consider:

(a) whether there was a reasonable excuse for the applicant's failure to appear;

(b) the existence and nature of any prejudice which might flow to the First Respondent from reinstatement; and

(c) whether the Applicant has a reasonably arguable prospect of success on the application.

1. The Applicant did not file any submissions in support of the Reinstatement Application despite being given the opportunity to do so.
2. On 26 August 2025, Orders were made by Registrar Foster of this Court for the application in a proceeding filed on 3 July 2025 be dismissed, with costs.

1. On 10 September 2025, the Applicant filed the Registrar Review Application with this Court.
2. This matter was heard on 16 October 2025 for a Hearing before me.
3. The Applicant relied upon the following documents:

(a) the Application filed 19 December 2019;

(b) the affidavit of the Applicant sworn and filed 19 December 2019;

(c) the affidavit of the Applicant on 2 July 2025 and filed 3 July 2025;

(d) the Interlocutory Application filed 3 July 2025;

(e) the affidavit of the Applicant affirmed 8 September 2025 and filed 10 September 2025; and

(f) the Interlocutory Application filed 10 September 2025.

(a) the response, filed 24 January 2020;

(b) outline of submissions filed 18 August 2025;

(c) the affidavit of Amron Rath affirmed 15 October 2025; and

(d) outline of submissions filed 15 October 2025.

1. Both parties relied on the Court Book.
2. The Registrar Review Application seeks the following orders:
   1. That the review is allowed. (Review Order 1).
   2. The orders made by Registrar Foster on 26 August 2025 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that the application be remitted to ART for reconsideration. (Review Order 2).
   3. The First Respondent pay the Applicant's costs of the review and of the application before His Honour. (Review Order 3).
   4. Such further or other order as the Court sees fit. (Review Order 4).

1. The Application contains the following grounds of review (Grounds of Review):
   1. I am from Taiwan and I have a genuine intention for applying Protection visa (Ground 1).
   2. AAT and immigration did not well consider my fears to return to my home country. AAT has strong prejudice to my claim and they did not believe what has happened to me in my home country (Ground 2).
   3. I have provided with AAT with all relevant explanation, however they never accept it (Ground 3).
   4. I wish the court can give me a fair decision (Ground 4).

1. The Applicant did not file any submissions in support of the Registrar Review Application.
2. The Applicant made oral submissions at the Hearing.
3. The Applicant made a general complaint regarding fairness. The Applicant submitted that he had a few reasons as to why he wants his case to be reviewed.
4. Firstly, that the Tribunal "did not trust" his evidence and did not consider his fear upon return. The Applicant stated that the evidence was not clear or open. The Applicant noted that "they" heard his story but did not trust him. The Applicant stated that the reason he missed the hearing was due to his mobile phone being broken and feelings of depression.

1. The Minister continues to rely on his submissions filed on 18 August 2015 as well as submissions filed on 15 October 2025 in response to the Registrar Review Application.

1. The Court has the power to set aside orders made in the absence of a party.[16] The Minister submits that the Judicial Registrar[17] exercised her discretion in determining that it was not in the interests of the administration of justice to reinstate the Applicant's Reinstatement Application.

1. The Minister notes that the Applicant has not filed or served any written material in support of the Registrar Review Application. The Minister submits that the Registrar Review Application should be dismissed on the basis of having no reasonable prospects of success.

1. The Minister submits that the Grounds of Review fail to establish jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's Decision and should be dismissed.

1. These grounds appear to be mere disagreements with the Tribunal's factual findings. The Minister submits that these grounds otherwise invite the court to engage in impermissible merits review.[18]
2. To the extent that Ground 1 asserts bias, the Minister submits that any allegation of bias must be distinctly made and clearly proven.[19] The Applicant has failed to provide particulars of evidence to support this allegation. The Minister submits that no inference of bias or prejudgment can be drawn from the Tribunal's findings, including conclusions adverse to the Applicant.[20]

1. The Applicant appears to allege that the Tribunal failed to afford him with procedural fairness. The Minister submits that the Tribunal complied with its procedural fairness obligations under Division 4 of Part 7 of the Migration Act.[21] The Tribunal invited the Applicant to attend a hearing on 27 November 2019,[22] which he attended with the assistance of an interpreter. The Minister submits that the Applicant was on notice from the Tribunal's questioning at the hearing that the credibility of his claims was the dispositive issue on review.[23]
2. The Minister submits that the Tribunal was not required to put any information to the Applicant pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act. The Tribunal did not err by relying on written and oral submissions provided by the Applicant.[24] The Minister submits that there is no apparent breach of either ss 424A or 425 of the Migration Act.

1. 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.
2. 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.[25]
3. "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.[26] The critical question is whether the decision maker has acted in breach of an express or implied condition of the decision-making authority which results conferred by statute such that the purported exercise of that authority lacks the legal force attributed to it by the statute.[27]
4. The Court may grant relief if it is satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is affected by jurisdictional error.[28] 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".[29] Different kinds of error may overlap.[30] The categories are not closed.[31]
5. 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.[32] This is to be determined as "a matter of reasonable conjecture within the parameters set by the historical facts that have been determined".[33] It has been described as an "undemanding" standard.[34]

1. The Protection Visa (Subclass 866) allows a person who is at real risk of significant harm or persecution in their home country to live in Australia permanently.
2. Section 47(1) of the Migration Act requires the Minister to consider a valid application for a visa. Section 65(1) of the Migration Act provides that the Minister is to grant a visa if satisfied that the criterion for the grant of the visa (as prescribed by the Migration Act or the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations)) have been satisfied, and to refuse to grant the visa, if not so satisfied.
3. Section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a criterion for the visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee. The term "refugee" is defined by s 5H of the Migration Act in terms that require the applicant for the visa to have a "well-founded fear of persecution"[35] as defined by s 5J.
4. Section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act provides that a criterion for the visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non‑citizen in Australia (other than a non‑citizen mentioned in s 36(2)(a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non‑citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm.
5. The criteria that the Applicant was required to satisfy for the grant of a Protection Visa (Subclass 866) are set out in Part 866 to Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

1. Rule 13.06(1)(c) of the 2021 GFL Rules provided that if a party to a proceeding is absent from a hearing (including a first court date), the Court or a Registrar may make various orders, including, in the case where the absent party is an applicant, dismiss the application.
2. Rule 22.04 of the 2025 GFL Rules provides that if a party to a proceeding is absent from a hearing (including a first court date), the Court or a Registrar may make various orders, including, in the case where the absent party is an applicant, dismiss the application.
3. Rule 22.04(2)(a) of the 2025 GFL Rules provides that the Court or a Registrar may vary or set aside a judgment or order after it has been entered if it was made in the absence of a party.

1. Section 254 of the FCFCOA Act provides for the making of Rules of Court for the delegation of any of the powers of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) to a delegate which includes a Senior Registrar or a Registrar.
2. Division 21.1 of the 2021 GFL Rules listed the powers of the Court that are delegated to a delegate. The powers delegated to Registrars include (Division 3.1), the power provided for in r 13.13 of the Rules to order that a proceeding be stayed or dismissed generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceeding. Rule 21.02(2) provided that an application for review of the exercise of a power by a Registrar must be made within 7 days.
3. Section 256(1) of the FCFCOA Act provides that a party to proceedings in which a delegate has exercised any of the powers of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) under s 254 may apply to the Court for review of that exercise of power. The application for review must be made within the time prescribed under the Rules or within any further time allowed in accordance with the Rules.
4. Rule 3.05 of the 2025 GFL Rules provides that for the purposes of subsection 256(1) of the FCFCOA Act, an application for review of the exercise of a power by a Registrar must be made within 21 days.
5. Rule 3.08 of the 2025 GFL Rules provides that a review of the exercise of power by a Registrar must proceed by way of a hearing de novo,[36] in other words, "anew" or "afresh".
6. Section 256(2) of the FCFCOA Act provides that on a review, the court may "make any order or orders it thinks fit in relation to the matter in respect of which the power was exercised". On a successful review, the court may set aside the exercise of the delegated power and make consequential orders to unwind the effect of the exercise of that power.[37] Where the review is dismissed, the order made by the delegate continues as a valid and authorised exercise of judicial power from the time of the exercise of that delegated power.[38]

1. The Applicant seeks to review the Registrar's Decision not to reinstate his Application which occurred because he did not appear at the Callover on 6 June 2025.
2. The Hearing before me is conducted as a hearing de novo. Accordingly, I am required to consider the Applicant's Reinstatement Application afresh.
3. The court is required to consider whether or not it is in the interests of justice to reinstate the Applicant's Application.[39] Factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion[40] to set aside a judgment or order closely correspond[41] to those relevant to an extension of time, and include:

(a) any delay in seeking reinstatement;[42]

(b) the explanation for the absence of the party;[43]

(c) the prejudice to the respondent as a result of the reinstatement;

(d) the public interest; and

(e) the merits of the underlying application.[44]

1. In CAL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[45] Mortimer J[46] observed,[47] in the exercise of the discretionary power to reinstate a proceeding which had been summarily dismissed for non-attendance, that three factors are consistently considered; first, whether the applicant has an adequate explanation for the non-appearance; second, whether there is any prejudice to the Minister if the matter is reinstated, and third, whether the applicant has an arguable case on judicial review.
2. Her Honour observed:[48]

The latter consideration is important because if there were no arguable case on judicial review, it is unlikely it could be said that a favourable exercise of the discretion to reinstate would advance the interests of the administration of justice in terms of the effective use of judicial resources, costs to the respondent, and fairness to an applicant. It is not fair to exercise a discretion favourably to an applicant if the Court is not satisfied there is an arguable case, because it can create false hopes in an applicant and an expectation, not grounded in law and reality, that her or his application may be successful.

1. Her Honour held[49] that the court was only required to consider the merits of the proposed grounds at a reasonably impressionistic level and was not required to conduct a full hearing.
2. In Tu'uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs[50] the High Court held that the Trial Judge had not committed jurisdictional error by forming the view that the substantive application lacked merit in the context of an application for an extension of time under s 477(2) of the Migration Act for the grant of remedy under s 476 of the Act. In that context, the extent and manner of consideration of the merits is a matter for the court,[51] which may include "impressionistic" assessment.[52]
3. The relevant authorities only operate as a guide to the exercise of the court's discretion,[53] as each case must ultimately turn on its own facts.
4. In FBS18 v Minister for Home Affairs,[54] the Full Court[55] held[56] in relation to r 16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), which is expressed in the same terms as r 22.04(2)(a) of the 2025 GFL Rules, that "the statutory discretion in the rule should not be fettered by judicially imposed rules so that it becomes equated to a statutory check-list even though all of the factors may be relevant".
5. The critical dates in this matter are as follows:

(a) 6 June 2025 Callover and Dismissal Order (Non-Appearance)

(b) 3 July 2025 Reinstatement Application filed

(c) 26 August 2025 Reinstatement Application dismissed

(d) 1 September 2025 2025 GFL Rules come into force

(e) 10 September 2025 Registrar Review Application filed

1. The 2021 GFL Rules and the 2025 GFL Rules have different time periods for the filing of an application to review a Registrar's decision. The 2021 GFL Rules had a time period of 7 days.[57] The 2025 GFL Rules have a time period of 21 days.[58]
2. While the Reinstatement Application was dismissed prior to the commencement of the 2025 GFL Rules, those rules came into force prior to expiration of the 7 day period provided for under the 2021 GFL Rules. As the 2025 GFL Rules operated on and from 1 September 2025, the relevant period for review at the time when the Registrar Review Application was filed (on 10 September 2025) was the 21 day period provided for in r 3.06(2) of the 2025 GFL Rules. Accordingly, the Registrar Review Application was filed within time.
3. Given that the hearing before me is a de novo review of the Reinstatement Application, I shall consider whether the Applicant has a reasonable explanation for non-appearance at the Callover and/or delay in bringing the Reinstatement Application.
4. The Callover took place on 6 June 2025. The Reinstatement Application was filed less than one month later on 3 July 2025. The 2021 GFL Rules did not prescribe a time period for the filing of a reinstatement application. I do not consider there to have been any material delay in the filing of the Reinstatement Application.
5. The Applicant did not address the circumstances of his non-attendance at the Callover in his affidavit material. At the hearing, the Applicant explained that his non-attendance occurred because his mobile phone was broken, and he could not access emails. He stated that he was depressed because of the death of some near relatives in the same time period. The Applicant explained that his depression meant that he was effectively housebound, and could not access emails through a public computer. The Minister contends, and I accept, that the Applicant had responsibility for maintaining his email services so that official communications could be received by him.
6. While I do not consider there to have been any material delay in the bringing of the Reinstatement Application, even treating the Applicant's submissions as evidence, I do not consider that he has a reasonable excuse for failing to attend the Callover. The absence of a reasonable explanation is a matter that weighs against the exercise of the discretion, but I don't place significant weight on it.
7. As is often the case, there is no specific prejudice to the Minister as a result of the reinstatement. But there is a public interest in the "prompt disposition of administrative matters".[59]
8. I turn then to the merits of the four Grounds of Review:
   1. I am from Taiwan and I have a genuine intention for applying Protection visa.
   2. AAT and immigration did not well consider my fears to return to my home country. AAT has strong prejudice to my claim and they did not believe what has happened to me in my home country.
   3. I have provided with AAT with all relevant explanation, however they never accept it.
   4. I wish the court can give me a fair decision.
9. Grounds 1 and 4 do not identify any jurisdictional error or arguable jurisdictional error.
10. Ground 2 asserts that the Tribunal did not consider the Applicant's fears to return to his home country. A consideration of the Tribunal's Decision reveals that it did in fact consider his claims for protection. Those claims are summarised at [17] to [21][60] of the Tribunal's Decision, specifically his claims that loan sharks would threaten him if he were to return and that the authorities would not help him. The Tribunal considered and rejected the Applicant's claims, including because his evidence was "vague, lacking in detail and inconsistent".[61] The inconsistency included discrepancies between his written claims and oral evidence, and the fact that the claim of "abduction" was not part of his written claims.[62] The Tribunal's Decision reveals that it considered the Applicant's claims and rejected them.
11. The Applicant's assertion that the Tribunal "has strong prejudice to my claim" would appear to be little more than a statement that the Tribunal rejected it. While I do not read Ground 2 to include a claim of actual or apprehended bias, I note for completeness, there is no evidence, particulars or submissions that identify and make good such a claim, and it is not otherwise evident on the material before me.
12. Similarly, Ground 3 asserts that having provided the Tribunal with "all relevant explanation", they did not then accept his claims. Once again, this appears to be a challenge to the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal. As such, it appears to be an invitation to the court to conduct impermissible merits review.
13. I am not satisfied that there is any substantive merit in Grounds 1 to 4, or any that is otherwise evident on the face of the materials before me.[63]
14. Having regard to the matters that are set out above, but principally the absence of any substantive merit in the Application for judicial review, I am not satisfied that it would be appropriate in the exercise of my discretion pursuant to r 22.04(2)(a) of the 2025 GFL Rules to reinstate the Applicant's Application.

1. As the Applicant has not succeeded in his application to review the Registrar's Decision, the Registrar Review Application must be dismissed.

1. At the end of each party's submissions, I invited them to make submissions as to costs in the event that the Application succeeded or was dismissed. In the event that the Application was dismissed, the Minister sought costs in the sum of $1,000. While the sum sought by the Minister appears to be a somewhat arbitrary amount that is not founded in any particular scale item, I am prepared to make a lump sum costs order in that amount in circumstances where the amount was not opposed and appears to be otherwise reasonable, having general regard to the extent of work done as evident from the Court file and amounts allowable in respect of costs under the Rules. Given the extent of the claim, I consider that it would be disproportionate to require taxation.

I certify that the preceding ninety-two (92) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Fary.

[1] Orders made by Judge Fary on 16 October 2025, Order 1.

[16] See r 24.04(a) of the 2025 GFL Rules.

[17] Orders made by Judicial Registrar Foster on 6 June 2025, Order 2.

[18] Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.

[19] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [69].

[20] SBBS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) 194 ALR 749 at [44]; VFAB of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 872; (2003) 131 FCR 102 at [21].

[21] In force at the time of the Tribunal's Decision.

[22] See ss 425 and 425A of the Migration Act.

[24] See ss 424A(3)(ba), 424A(3)(a) and 424A(3)(b) of the Migration Act.

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

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

[27] LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 280 CLR 321 (LPDT) at [2].

[28] Plaintiff S157/2002.

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

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

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

[35] See s 5H(1)(a) of the Migration Act.

[36] Bechara v Bates [2021] FCAFC 34; (2021) 286 FCR 166 per Allsop CJ, Markovic & Colvin JJ at [17]-[31].

[37] Robson v Body Corporate for Sterling at Kings Beach CTS 2942 [2021] FCAFC 143; (2021) 286 FCR 494 per Allsop CJ (Markovic & Derrington JJ agreeing) at [2]-[4], [18] and [29].

[39] FBS18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 196 (FBS18) at [50].

[41] AVC19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1752 at [3] to [5] per Davies J

[42] AYF15 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 10 at [8]; AHN17 v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2018] FCA 1598 (AHN17) at [33].

[43] MZYEZ v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 530 at [7].

[44] CAL15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1344 at [3].

[45] [2016] FCA 1344.

[50] [2022] HCA 28; (2022) 276 CLR 579.

[51] Tu'uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2022] HCA 28; (2022) 276 CLR 579 (Tu'uta Katoa) at [19].

[54] [2019] FCAFC 196.

[59] WQRJ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 736 per Derrington J (at [41]).

[63] Noting the comments of Mortimer J (as her Honour was then) in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392; (2015) 238 FCR 158 at [113].