FNA18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1301

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 a Protection (Subclass 866) visa (Protection Visa).
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 (and listed for hearing on that day); and

(b) heard in person on 5 August 2025 at the Melbourne Registry of this Court.

1. To obtain relief from this Court, the Applicant must show that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. For the reasons that follow, this Court 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 a jurisdictional error in affirming the decision of the Delegate refusing the Applicant a Protection Visa.

1. The Applicant is a citizen of Malaysia[1] who arrived in Australia on 11 August 2014 with his wife as holders of a Visitor (Subclass 601) visas.[2] Their visas ceased on 12 November 2014, and they remained in Australia as unlawful non-citizens, until 23 March 2015 when bridging visas were issued following them making applications for Protections Visas. [3]
2. On 5 March 2016, the Applicant's children also arrived in Australia on Visitor (subclass 601) visas. The Applicant's wife and children made no independent claims for protection but were added to the pending Protection Visa application as members of the Applicant's family unit. By September 2024, the Applicant's wife and children had withdrawn from proceedings.
3. In his Protection Visa application, the Applicant claimed that he:[4]

(1) participated in a political demonstration against the Malaysia government in 2011;

(2) joined the Democratic Action Party (DAP), which opposed the ruling government;

(3) was imprisoned, where he was tortured by the Malaysian police and denied clothing;

(4) fled Malaysia to save his life following his imprisonment;

(5) would be arrested, detained, tortured or killed by the Malaysian police if returned;

(6) did not seek help from the Malaysian authorities as they were also complicit; and

(7) attempted to relocate to the countryside, but the police went to his mother's house and threatened her in search of him.

1. On 29 September 2016, the Primary Applicant was notified that the Delegate had refused to grant the Protection Visa.
2. The Delegate's reasons for refusing the Applicant's Protection Visa application were that:[5]

(a) the Applicant failed to provide sufficient detail regarding his alleged political activities, including his claimed membership in the DAP and participation in anti-government demonstrations;

(b) although the Applicant asserted that he was arrested and tortured, he did not provide any supporting documentation or credible narrative detailing the circumstances of his alleged detention and mistreatment by the Malaysian authorities;

(c) the Applicant's claims lacked specificity and were not supported by independent evidence such as medical reports, witness statements, or county-specific documentation;

(d) relevant country information acknowledged restrictions on political dissent in Malaysia, including arrests and intimidation of protestors, but did not indicate that individuals with profiles similar to the Applicant's - such as one-time protest attendees or low-level DAP supporters - were at risk of persecution;

(e) the Applicant did not seek assistance from local authorities and provided no persuasive explanation for this omission, undermining his credibility and the plausibility of his fear of harm; and

(f) the Applicant admitted to relocating within Malaysia following his alleged arrest, and there was insufficient evidence to suggest that relocation would not have been a viable option for ongoing safety.

1. Based on these findings, the Delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant faced a real chance of harm for one or more of the Covention reasons outlined in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act, nor was the Delegate satisfied that there was a real risk of significant harm if the Applicant returned to Malaysia.
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 22 October 2016, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Delegate's decision.[6]
2. On 6 July 2018, the Applicant was invited by the Tribunal to attend a hearing scheduled for 13 September 2018. The invitation indicated that, on the basis of the material before it, the Tribunal could not make a favourable decision. The Applicant was requested to complete a "Response to Hearing Invitation - MR Division" form within seven days.[7]
3. On 4 September 2018, the Applicant returned late, the completed form to the Tribunal.[8]
4. On 13 September 2018, the hearing proceeded as scheduled, with the Applicant in attendance.[9]
5. On 3 October 2018, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision not to grant the Applicant's Protection Visa.[10]

1. The Tribunal's decision is 9 pages long and spans 29 paragraphs.
2. At paragraph 8 of the First Respondent's (Minister) outline of submissions filed on 3 July 2025, the Minister's representative summarised the Tribunal's reasons. The Court as presently constituted has carefully read the Tribunal's reasons and accept the summary as comprehensive, fair and properly referenced. The Court adopts it for the purposes of this judgment (citations omitted):
   1. By letter sent by email to the applicant on 3 October 2018, the Tribunal notified the applicant of its decision, dated the same date, affirming the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the Visa. Relevantly, the Tribunal:

a) found, in accordance with the oral evidence given by the applicant at the hearing, that: > > 1. the applicant's only involvement with political matters had been at a rally in 2011, where he had been arrested, assaulted, detained for 10 days and threatened by police, but released without charges; and > 2. he did not join the DAP or any political party; > > b) noted that the applicant had not been arrested or detained in the three years he was in Malaysia since the 2011 rally; > > c) outlined concerns about the applicant's assertion that someone from the authorities had questioned his mother about his whereabouts as the evidence was vague, and found that someone may have enquired after the applicant but the interest was not threatening so as to cause harm to the applicant: > > d) did not accept the applicant's assertion that the police were corrupt and harboured a grudge against him, given the lack of evidence; > > e) was not satisfied that the applicant feared harm from representatives of the government as a consequence of participation in one rally and found that he would be of no or very low level interest to the authorities due to his previous arrest and would not face serious harm for any of the reasons under s 5J(1)(a) if he were to return; > > f) found that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a); and > > g) considered whether the applicant would suffer significant harm as a result of being returned to Malaysia and found that he would not and that s 36(2)(aa) was not met.

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

1. On 19 October 2018 the Applicant filed the present application for judicial review (Originating Application). The Originating Application is brought pursuant to s 476 of the Act. The Applicant seeks orders that the decision of the Tribunal be quashed and that it be remitted to be determined according to law.
2. The Applicant lists eight grounds of alleged error. The Applicant's grounds of review, extracted from the Originating application, are as follows:

Ground 1: Error of Law

The decision by the Second Respondent involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision. The Tribunal's decision involved an error of law material to the decision thereby contributing to the unsatisfactory decision. But for the error, the decision would have been, or might have been different.

Ground 2: Misapplication of law or failure to ask the correct question

Second Respondent either misrepresented, misunderstood or misapplied the applicable law, or has otherwise failed to ask itself the correct question. The decision made by the Tribunal when I was asked about my fear of persecution the Tribunal did not ask me proper details of the political party that I was in. The Tribunal should have asked me about how I was involved in the political party and I was treated by the authorities when I was arrested. The Tribunal failed to ask the correct questions to verify the matter.

Ground 3: No Evidence

There was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision by the Second Respondent or the Second Respondent relied on evidence which did not exist.

Ground 4: The Failure to Take into Account Relevant Considerations

The Second Respondent failed to take into account a relevant consideration in the exercise of power. The Tribunal failed to take into account my health condition and the fact that my health have been badly affected which made it hard for me at the Tribunal hearing. I could not remember some of the answers to the questions that were asked of me at the Tribunal. The Tribunal should have taken into account the status of my health and placed enough emphasis when those questions were asked of me. The Tribunal could have provided me with extra support by allowing me adequate time to answer the questions so that I could gather my recollection of those events

Ground 5: The taking into account of irrelevant considerations

The Second Respondent took into account an irrelevant consideration in the exercise of power. The Tribunal states that it doubts there will be a serious harm, shouldn't the emphasis be on the fear I have developed as a result of the encounters I have had with the people of the political power at that time. The Tribunal seeks to verify whether those people in fact exist and is relying on independent information available regarding political party members operating in Malaysia.

Ground 6: Without regard to the merits

The Second Respondent exercised a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case.

Ground 7: Unreasonableness

I sincerely believe that the Second Respondent exercise power m a manner that 1s so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power.

Ground 8: Uncertainty

The Second Respondent exercised power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain and had a negative outcome in my review application.

1. Before the Court the Applicant explained that he paid someone to assist him draft the grounds of review. He said that this person did not explain the submitted grounds of review to him. Further, the Applicant explained that he was unable to make contact with this person prior to the hearing.

1. On 1 November 2018, the First Respondent (Minister) filed its response and opposed the application and sought that it be dismissed.
2. On 2 September 2020, the Minister filed a bundle of relevant documents (Court Book).
3. On 17 October 2024, a Registrar of this Court issued orders (Registrar's Order) including that the:

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

(2) Minister to file any written submissions and further evidence in reply by at least 28 days prior to the hearing.

1. The Applicant did not comply with the Registrar's Orders. Before the Court the Applicant confirmed the same.
2. On 3 July 2025, the Minister complied with the Registrar's Order by filing written submissions.
3. On 10 July 2025, the Minister filed an Affidavit of Service, affirmed by Kate Laurice Buckley on 9 July 2025.
4. On 11 July 2025, the Minister filed a bundle of authorities.
5. On 16 July 2025, the parties consented to an adjournment, to allow the Applicant more time to obtain legal representation. The matter was adjourned to 4 August 2025. Further, Orders were made by the Court as presently constituted directing that:

(1) the name of the First Respondent be amended to "Minister for Immigration and Citizenship", the Applicant to file in the Court, and serve on the First Respondent, any amended application, written submissions, and further evidence by 4:00 pm on 25 July 2025; and

(2) the First Respondent to file in the Court, and serve on the Applicant, any amended response, written submissions and further evidence by 4:00 pm on 1 August 2025.

1. Despite being provided with a further opportunity to do so the Applicant did not file an amended application nor further particulars of the grounds for judicial review.
2. Therefore, the materials before the Court are as follows:

(1) application for judicial review filed 19 October 2018;

(2) affidavit filed by the Applicant on 19 October 2018;

(3) Court Book numbering 274 pages filed 2 September 2020 (marked as Exhibit R1);

(4) affidavit of Sanjana Tushar Surawala filed 25 September 2024 (marked as Exhibit R2);

(5) written submissions filed by the Minister on 3 July 2025;

(6) affidavit of Service filed 10 July 2025, affirmed by Kate Laurice Buckley on 9 July 2025 (marked as Exhibit R3); and

(7) bundle of authorities filed 11 July 2025.

1. At the hearing, the Applicant appeared before the Court without legal representation. However, the Applicant, was assisted by his employer Mr Alampi. Without objection by the Minister, the Court allowed Mr Alampi to speak on behalf of and in addition to the Applicant. The Minister was represented by Andrea Anastasi, solicitor at Clayton Utz.
2. The Court confirmed with the Applicant that he 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;[11]

(b) where the decision-maker ignores relevant material;[12]

(c) where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material;[13]

(d) where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures;[14]

(e) where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias;[15] and

(f) where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable.[16]

1. It was also explained to the Applicant that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal's decision or grant to him the Protection Visa he seeks. 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.[17]
2. Based on the Applicant's responses the Court is confident they properly comprehended the scope and purpose of the hearing. Noting that the Applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave the Applicant and his employer 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.[18]
3. Before this Court, the Applicant made limited submissions in support of the grounds set out in their application. Those submissions are considered below.
4. The Minister relied upon the outline of written submissions filed on 3 July 2025.
5. After the Minister made their submissions, the Applicant was provided with a 5-minute adjournment, to discuss with his employer, whether he had anything further to say the Court in support of his application. The Applicant made further submissions also considered below.
6. Further, the Minister had foreshadowed an application for costs in the event that the Applicant was unsuccessful. The Minister's representative explained that the proposed costs ($7,467) where set at the scale amount at the time the Applicant filed the Originating Application (and therefore less than the present scale costs).
7. The Court explained to the Applicant that it had not made a decision but that:

(1) an unsuccessful party usually pays the costs of the successful party; and

(2) any order for costs had to be reasonable.

1. The Applicant was invited to address the Court on the question of costs. The Applicant said he had nothing to say.

The role of the Court in judicial review proceedings

1. In Bhasker v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[19] 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.[20]

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.[21]

51. The Court may grant relief if it is satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is affected by jurisdictional error.[22] 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".[23] Different kinds of error may overlap.[24] The categories are not closed.[25] The critical question is whether the decision maker has exceeded the authority or power conferred by the statute.[26]

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.[27] This is to be determined as "a matter of reasonable conjecture within the parameters set by the historical facts that have been determined".[28] It has been described as an "undemanding" standard.[29]

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.[30]

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

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

(2) each of the eight grounds of review.

1. To the extent that the 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 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 Applicant at the hearing, the Court cannot consider for itself whether the 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. The Court as presently constituted incorporates (without repetition) paragraphs 10 to 22 of the Minister's outline of submissions.

Ground 1: Error of Law

The decision by the Second Respondent involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision. The Tribunal's decision involved an error of law material to the decision thereby contributing to the unsatisfactory decision. But for the error, the decision would have been, or might have been different.

1. The Court asked the Applicant what he meant by this ground. The Applicant indicated that he was unsure what this ground meant.
2. The Court took the Applicant to page 242 of the Court Book and paragraphs 10 to 18 of the Tribunal decision. There the Tribunal dealt with all the matters that were raised by the Applicant. For example, the Applicant confirmed to the Court that his only involvement in political matters was his attendance at a rally in 2011 (i.e. three years before he left Malaysia and four years before he made an application for protection). The Applicant identified no error in the Tribunal's findings.
3. Further, the Tribunal applied the law correctly on the evidence before it. The Tribunal correctly set out the relevant legislation[31] and correctly applied it.
4. Without further particulars, Ground one does not identify jurisdictional error on behalf of the Tribunal.
5. Ground One is dismissed.

Ground 2: Misapplication of law or failure to ask the correct question

Second Respondent either misrepresented, misunderstood or misapplied the applicable law, or has otherwise failed to ask itself the correct question. The decision made by the Tribunal when I was asked about my fear of persecution the Tribunal did not ask me proper details of the political party that I was in. The Tribunal should have asked me about how I was involved in the political party and I was treated by the authorities when I was arrested. The Tribunal failed to ask the correct questions to verify the matter.

1. Ground Two appears to be a sub-set of Ground One. It fails to establish jurisdictional error for the same reason. The Tribunal dealt with all the matters that were raised by the Applicant.
2. To the extent that the Applicant complains that the Tribunal should have asked him other questions the complaint is misconceived. It is well established that the onus is on the applicant before the Tribunal to make out his or her own claims.[32]
3. At this point in the proceeding the Applicant and his employer indicated that they needed more time to understand the materials and that they had been attempting to obtain legal advice. No application for an adjournment was made. However, the Court noted that the matter has been on foot since 2018, and the Applicant has had ample time to obtain legal representation or seek advice. It is further noted that the hearing had already been adjourned on one occasion to allow the Applicant time to obtain legal advice.
4. Ground Two demonstrates no jurisdictional error. Ground Two is dismissed.

Ground 3: No Evidence

There was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision by the Second Respondent or the Second Respondent relied on evidence which did not exist.

1. The Primary Applicant was asked what they meant by this ground. The Applicant was unable to direct the Court to where in the Tribunal decision findings were made that were based on evidence that did not exist. On the face of the decision the Tribunal considered the evidence and material before it and made the findings that were open to it.
2. Ground Three is dismissed.

Ground 4: The Failure to Take into Account Relevant Considerations

The Second Respondent failed to take into account a relevant consideration in the exercise of power. The Tribunal failed to take into account my health condition and the fact that my health have been badly affected which made it hard for me at the Tribunal hearing. I could not remember some of the answers to the questions that were asked of me at the Tribunal. The Tribunal should have taken into account the status of my health and placed enough emphasis when those questions were asked of me. The Tribunal could have provided me with extra support by allowing me adequate time to answer the questions so that I could gather my recollection of those events

1. In reviewing the Tribunal hearing there is no evidence that the Applicant was unable to participate in the hearing because of a health condition. There was no application for an adjournment. In the three weeks after the Tribunal hearing (before the Tribunal issued its decision) the Applicant made no submissions about his ability to participate in the hearing being compromised. At the hearing before this Court, in answer to a question from the Court as presently constituted the Applicant confirmed that he never raised the matter of ill health with the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot consider a matter, which is not before it.
2. Ground Four is dismissed.

Ground 5: The taking into account of irrelevant considerations

The Second Respondent took into account an irrelevant consideration in the exercise of power. The Tribunal states that it doubts there will be a serious harm, shouldn't the emphasis be on the fear I have developed as a result of the encounters I have had with the people of the political power at that time. The Tribunal seeks to verify whether those people in fact exist and is relying on independent information available regarding political party members operating in Malaysia.

1. The Applicant had nothing to say about this ground. It is unclear what the alleged irrelevant considerations were. The Tribunal considered all the material and evidence before it and made an assessment that the Applicant was not a person whom Australia owed protection obligations to and did not meet ss 36(2)(a)-(aa) of the Act. This ground appears to invite the Court to engage in impermissible merits review. The Tribunal correctly applied the law to the facts and made findings that were open to it on that evidence.
2. Ground Five is dismissed.

Ground 6: Without regard to the merits

The Second Respondent exercised a discretionary power in accordance with a rule or policy without regard to the merits of the particular case.

1. The Applicant was asked what rule or policy he was referring to, but he had no substantive response.
2. Without particulars, no jurisdictional error can be established.
3. Ground Six is dismissed.

Ground 7: Unreasonableness

I sincerely believe that the Second Respondent exercise power m a manner that 1s so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power.

1. The Applicant was asked to explain in his own words how the Tribunal got the decision wrong. The Applicant's response delved into the merits of the decision and is properly characterised as a simple disagreement with the Tribunal's decision.
2. Unreasonableness is where a decision-maker has come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have come to it,[33] or where a decision has been made that lacks an "evident and intelligible justification".[34]None of the arguments advanced by the Applicant establish legal unreasonableness on behalf of the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal's decision was one that was made with evident and intelligible justification. There is a clear line of thinking between the evidence before the Tribunal in its decision to affirm the decision of the Delegate.
4. Ground Seven is dismissed.

Ground 8: Uncertainty

The Second Respondent exercised power in such a way that the result of the exercise of the power is uncertain and had a negative outcome in my review application

1. It was unclear what the Applicant meant by this ground. The Court agrees with the Minister's submissions, the Tribunal fulfilled its statutory obligations under Part 7 of the Act, and the decision was properly made under s 430 of the Act. The decision was to affirm the Delegate's decision, which was clearly put to the Applicant in writing on 3 October 2018.
2. Ground Eight is dismissed.

1. Mindful of the Court's obligations towards unrepresented litigants as outlined in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection,[35] the Court has scrutinised the application, the materials before the Tribunal and the Tribunal's decision to identify any jurisdictional error. The Court has also read the applicant's grounds as broadly as possible and remain alive to the possibility of jurisdictional error on the Tribunal's part. Nevertheless, the Court is of the view that error has not been disclosed on the Tribunal's part.

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.
3. In its submissions the Minister sought a further order that the "The Applicant pay the First Respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $7,467.00".
4. The Court is satisfied that costs ought to follow the event, and that it is appropriate to make an order in the amount sought by the Minister which is below the current scale costs[36] and given the amount of work undertaken as evidenced by the court file.

I certify that the preceding eighty-two (82) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Johns.

[11] Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 198.

[12] Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 198.

[13] Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 198.

[14] SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor [2005] HCA 24; (2005) 228 CLR 294, [207]-[208].

[15] SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80, [2].

[16] Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611, [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li [2012] HCA 61; (2013) 249 CLR 332, [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437, [44].

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

[18] [2019] FCA 600, [7].

[19] [2025] FedCFamC2G 620.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[32] Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 501.

[33] Minister for Immigration v Li [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 297 ALR 225, [28].

[34] Minister for Immigration v Li [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 297 ALR 225, [76].

[35] [2015] FCA 1392; 238 FCR 158, [59]-[77], [100] and [112]-[113].

[36] Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 2.