Matharu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1828

1. The Applicant pays the First Respondent's costs and disbursements of and

incidental to the proceeding, fixed in the amount of $878.00.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. These are the reasons for judgement delivered ex tempore on 31 October 2025, revised from transcript only to include extracts of cited documents and to make corrections of typographical errors or minor matters to reflect the intention of the Court.
2. Having considered all the matters which are in the Court Book, the submissions of the Minister, and what has been put before the Court this morning, the Court is in a position to issue its decision.
3. The decision of the Court will be that the application for judicial review filed on 6 November 2023 be summarily dismissed pursuant to rule 23.08(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025.
4. The reasons for that are that, as the parties are aware, this is a review of a decision of the registrar of this Court to summarily dismiss Tarsem Singh Matharu's application for judicial review. In short, the background to this matter is as follows.

1. On 31 December 2019, the Applicant applied for a visa as a dependant of his partner's Temporary Graduate (Graduate Work Subsequent Entrant) (subclass 485) visa. The Applicant's partner held that visa between 20 August 2019 and 20 February 2021.
2. On 12 October 2021, some 8 months after the expiration of the Applicant's partner's visa, the visa application was refused by a delegate of the then Minister for Home Affairs (Delegate) because the Applicant was not a member of a family unit of a person who held a subclass 485 visa. That factual matter is incontestable.
3. On 1 November 2023, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) affirmed the decision under review on the same basis as the Delegate.
4. On 6 November 2023, the Applicant applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.
5. On 13 October 2025, a registrar of this Court summarily dismissed the application for judicial review on the basis that the Applicant had no reasonable prospects of success. The Applicant was ordered to pay the Minister's costs in the amount of $4,533.02.
6. On 17 October 2025, the Applicant applied for review of the registrar's decision, and it is that application to which these reasons are concerned.
7. As the Court explained earlier this morning, this review is a hearing de novo - that is to say this decision is not concerned with correcting any error on behalf of the registrar, but it is a fresh hearing which may result in a different order having the effect of undoing or revoking the decision of the registrar. For these reasons, the Court does not propose to make a different order to that of the registrar. Rather, the Court summarily dismisses the application for review filed by the Applicant on 6 November 2023.
8. It is important to note though that on 25 September 2023, the Applicant provided a statement to the Tribunal in which he indicated that he was writing in respect of this matter, that he had a hearing scheduled for 31 October 2023 in regards to the refusal of his 485 Subsequent Entrant Visa, and importantly that he did not wish to proceed with the hearing scheduled. He then made certain submissions which will be reproduced in the decision:

1. I am writing regarding my above-mentioned case.

1. I have a hearing scheduled for 31 October 2023 in regards to the refusal of my 485 subsequent entrant visa.

3. I do not wish to proceed with the hearing scheduled as above.

1. However, I wish the tribunal to acknowledge the following circumstances in regards to my visa:

   a) I applied for a Temporary Graduate Subclass 485 subsequent entrant visa on 31 December 2019.

   b) Further, as my application was assessed, the department had requested for further documents and evidence in regards to my application and sent two requests in April 2020 and September 2020.

   c) However, I was not notified by my former agent about these requests. I was in the belief that my agent is working on my application, and I need not worry about it.

   d) Later, as I myself enquired about my visa with my agent, then he informed about the request. However, by the time I found out about the requests, it was already too late.

   e) Consequently, the primary applicant's 485 visa ceased on 20 February 2021. As such, my visa got refused on 12 October 2021. Therefore, I was not able to submit any documents further.

2. I wish to notify the tribunal that I do not have any further documents or information to provide at this stage.

3. Thus, I humbly request the tribunal to make a decision on the basis of the documents that has already been provided and in record with the tribunal.

1. On 27 September 2023, the Tribunal responded to the Applicant's request and notified the Applicant that the hearing had been cancelled, and the decision would be made on the papers.
2. On 1 November 2023, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate.
3. On 6 November 2023, the Applicant filed an application with this Court to have the decision of the Tribunal judicially reviewed. The application was filed within the 35-day time limit provided for in the Act and brought pursuant to section 476 of the Act which confers on this Court, in relation to migration decisions, the same original jurisdiction as the High Court under section 75(v) of the Constitution. That is, the Court may undertake judicial review in respect of matters where a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. The originating application contained one ground of review and five particulars. The Court will address those in a moment. The application sought writs of certiorari and mandamus.
4. On 1 December 2023, the First Respondent, the Minister, filed a response seeking that the application for judicial review be dismissed with costs because the application does not establish any jurisdictional error.
5. On 9 July 2024, the Court Book was filed.
6. On 17 December 2024, the Minister filed an amended response which sought amongst other orders that the matter be summarily dismissed.
7. As the court has indicated, a registrar of this Court summarily dismissed the application on 13 October 2025.
8. The Applicant sought review of the registrar's decision on 17 October 2025, and in the review application sought orders that the orders made by the Registrar be set aside and that in substitution for those orders, the Court make orders that the application for summary judgment made by the first respondent be dismissed and the application for judicial review filed on 6 November 2023 be reinstated and proceed according to law. That application was brought within the 21-day timeframe required by the rules.
9. The matter was heard today and the Applicant represented himself and the Minister was represented by Mr Cohen Dietrich, a solicitor with Minter Ellison. At the commencement of the hearing, the Court explained to the Applicant that the Court cannot set aside the decision of the Tribunal unless there is an arguable case of jurisdictional error. It was further explained that in a review hearing, the test to be applied is whether there is a real or genuine dispute that might reasonably be resolved in the Applicant's favour. Noting that the Applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave the Applicant an opportunity to elaborate on his grounds of review and to outline any other concerns he might have with the Tribunal's decision.
10. As stated earlier, the question of whether judicial review application ought to be summarily dismissed is considered on a de novo basis. The relevant section is section 143 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth). The Court's power to give summary judgment is provided for in rule 23.08 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth). The Minister bears the onus in an application for summary dismissal to establish and satisfy the Court that the claims made for relief by the applicant in the proceeding have no reasonable prospects of success.
11. In Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Patel)[1], her Honour, Judge Mansini, reviewed a Registrar's decision to summarily dismiss an application for judicial review on the basis that it lacked a reasonable prospect of success. Her Honour held, paragraph 40:

40. ... [T]he Court is concerned with whether the case raises a real or genuine dispute that might reasonably be resolved in an applicant's favour as distinct from the identification of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision...

1. The Court respectfully adopts Her Honour's reasonings.
2. In the originating application, the Applicant sought judicial review on the following grounds, matters which were put to him this morning.

1. The first was that the Tribunal, at each and every stage, was unreasonable and illogical, while making the decision. The Applicant said, there "I contend the decision was made as a result of jurisdictional error". Before me this morning, the Applicant was unable to explain how the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable or illogical. Turning then to each of the particulars before me this morning in relation to particulars 1, 2, and 3, the Applicant had nothing further to say than what was contained in the originating application.
2. In relation to item 4, which was that it was very unreasonable for the Tribunal to not ask further specific information while making the decision, the Court notes that the Tribunal cannot be criticised in circumstances where it invited the Applicant to a hearing and he decided to decline that opportunity.
3. The same can be said for item 5, where it is complained that the Tribunal did not consider all documents provided. The Applicant was provided with an opportunity to provide further additional documents to the Tribunal and he declined a hearing. As her Honour observed in Patel, it is worth noting that the task on judicial review is not to undertake a general review of the Tribunal's decision or substitute it with a decision which the Court considers ought to have been made. The jurisdiction, being supervisory, allows for a decision to be quashed on established grounds, the most important of which is jurisdictional error, and where appropriate to order the matter be remitted and reconsidered according to law.
4. However, in accordance with the approach taken in Patel and other similar matters, it is not necessary for me to engage in a detailed consideration of the grounds advanced by the Applicant as would be required in substantive judicial review hearing. That is because it is sufficient to outline an indisputable fact that makes it clear that this matter does not involve a real or genuine dispute, nor one capable of being resolved in the Applicant's favour.
5. The undisputed fact is that at the time the Delegate made the Delegate's decision, the Applicant's partner did not hold the relevant necessary visa. The Delegate therefore made the only decision the Delegate could make.
6. It necessarily follows that when the matter came before the Tribunal, the Tribunal made the only decision that it could make in the circumstances. Because there is no real or genuine dispute that might reasonably be resolved in the Applicant's favour, I am satisfied that the Applicant has no reasonable prospects of success in seeking to have the Tribunal's decision quashed and remitted.
7. Accordingly, as indicated, the application for judicial review is summarily dismissed in accordance with section 143 of the Act and rule 23.08 1(a) of the rules. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision stands.

I certify that the preceding thirty-two (32) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Johns.

[1] [2025] FedCFamC2G 921.