Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 560

1. Before the Court is an Application filed on 28 June 2024, in which the applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (Tribunal) dated 23 May 2024. By that decision, the Tribunal dismissed the applicants' review application for non-appearance under s 362B(1A)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).

1. The applicants are citizens of India. The first and second applicant are husband and wife, respectively.
2. On 17 November 2019, the first applicant (Applicant) arrived in Australia as the holder of a Tourist (Subclass 600) visa.
3. On 31 December 2019, the Applicant applied for a Protection (Subclass 866) visa which was refused on 12 February 2021.
4. On 15 July 2021, the Applicant applied for a Medical Treatment (Subclass 602) visa which was refused on 2 August 2021. The Applicant sought review of the Department of Home Affairs' (Department) decision to refuse the visa, and on 15 November 2022, the Department's decision was affirmed by the Tribunal.
5. On 7 February 2023, the applicants applied for a Medical Treatment (Subclass 602) (Visitor) visa and a (Support Person) visa (Visa Applications). The Applicant provided the following email address for correspondence (Applicant's Email Address).
6. On 8 February 2023, the Department sent a letter to the Applicant's Email Address inviting the Applicant to comment on adverse information it had received in relation to the Visa Applications (Invitation to Comment). The Department noted that the Applicant's last visa expired on 17 February 2020 and that he had remained in Australia since that time on a succession of temporary bridging visas and that he was in Australia unlawfully at the time of making the Visa Applications. The Invitation to Comment further noted that the Applicant had a wife in Australia, had remained in Australia for a continuous period of more than three years and had not provided any information regarding the strength of his ties to India. The Applicant did not respond to the Invitation to Comment.
7. On 28 March 2023, a delegate of the first respondent (Delegate) refused to grant the Applicant the visa on the basis that he did not satisfy cl 602.215 of sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations). On that same date, the Delegate refused to grant the second applicant the visa.
8. On 12 April 2023, the applicants applied to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate's decision.
9. On 13 April 2023, the Tribunal sent an email to the Applicant's Email Address advising the applicants that they were required to submit two separate review applications.
10. On 17 April 2023, the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal from the Applicant's Email Address confirming that the second applicant would not continue to apply for review of her application but requested that she be included in his application for review.
11. On 19 April 2023, the Tribunal sent an email to the Applicant's Email Address stating that the second applicant would be included in Applicant's application for review until a final decision was made and noted that the Applicant should continue to monitor the Applicant's Email Address for further correspondence.
12. On 17 April 2024, the Tribunal sent an email to the Applicant's Email Address enclosing an invitation for the applicants to attend a hearing on 21 May 2024 at 9.00am via videoconference (Hearing Invitation).
13. On 9 May 2024, the Tribunal sent an email to the Applicant's Email Address, inviting the applicants to participate in a test videoconference call on 16 May 2024 at 2.30pm. The applicants did not participate in the test videoconference call.
14. On 14 May 2024 and 20 May 2024, the Tribunal sent an SMS hearing reminder to the applicants at the telephone number provided in the application for review (Telephone Number) notifying the applicants of the hearing scheduled for 21 May 2024.
15. On 21 May 2024, the applicants did not appear at the scheduled hearing before the Tribunal. The hearing attendant waited on the videoconference call for the applicants to join from 8.45am and remained in the videoconference call until 9.30am. The hearing attendant unsuccessfully attempted to contact the applicant by telephoning the Telephone Number on four separate occasions.
16. On 23 May 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the review application for non-appearance under s 362B(1A)(b) of the Act (Dismissal Decision).
17. On 6 June 2024, the applicants sent an email to the Tribunal from the Applicant's Email Address seeking reinstatement of their review application on the basis that they were not notified of the hearing date or time by their "agent".
18. On 7 June 2024, the Tribunal confirmed its decision to dismiss the application for review and did not reinstate the application for review (Confirmation Decision).

1. The Tribunal issued its statement of decision and reasons on 23 May 2024 and sent a copy to the Applicant's Email Address on that same date.
2. At paragraphs [1] - [3] of the Dismissal Decision, the Tribunal noted that on 17 April 2024 the applicants were invited to attend the hearing pursuant to s 425 of the Act and that the invitation stated that if the applicants did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the application for review without further consideration of the application or the information before it. The Tribunal further noted that no response to the Hearing Invitation was received and the applicants did not otherwise contact the Tribunal with any questions. The Tribunal recorded that the applicants did not appear at the scheduled time and after reviewing the file, it was satisfied that the applicants were properly invited to attend the hearing pursuant to s 441A(5) of the Act in circumstances where:

(1) the Hearing Invitation was not returned to the sender;

(2) two SMS reminders had been sent to the applicants ahead of the hearing to remind them of the scheduled date; and

(3) four separate unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicants via telephone at the time of the scheduled hearing had been made.

1. At paragraph [4] of the Dismissal Decision, the Tribunal found that the applicants had not contacted the Tribunal to explain their non-attendance or seek a postponement of the hearing and dismissed the application without further consideration of the application or the information before it.

1. The Tribunal issued its statement of decision and reasons on 7 June 2024 and sent a copy to the Applicant's Email Address on that same date.
2. The Confirmation Decision is short and makes note of the application before it at paragraph [1]. At paragraphs [2] - [3] of the Confirmation Decision, the Tribunal records that on 23 May 2024 it dismissed the application under s 362B(1A)(b) of the Act as a result of the applicants failing to appear before it at the time and date of the scheduled hearing, being 21 May 2024. The Tribunal further noted that the applicants were notified of the Dismissal Decision and given a copy of it pursuant to s 362C(5) of the Act in addition to being advised that reinstatement of the application could be sought within 14 days.
3. At paragraph [4] of the Confirmation Decision, the Tribunal noted that it received correspondence from the Applicant requesting reinstatement of the application for review on the basis that the application was "processed" by an agent who created and used a different email address in the application and that the agent did not notify the applicants of the hearing date. The Tribunal further noted that the applicants advised that they recently asked the agent for an update regarding the application for review, and it was only then they became aware that the hearing date had passed and that they had received correspondence from the Tribunal seeking reasons for reinstatement.
4. At paragraph [5] of the Confirmation Decision, the Tribunal noted that the applicants had never been represented by a migration agent before the Tribunal, the applicants lodged the application for review and the email address provided for correspondence in the application for review was an email address monitored by the Applicant. The Tribunal further noted that it had been corresponding with the applicants via that email address since 13 April 2023. At paragraphs [6] - [7], the Tribunal set out the history of its correspondence with the applicants via the Applicant's Email Address noting the Hearing Invitation sent 17 April 2024 and the notice of the Dismissal Decision sent to the applicants on 23 May 2024. Relevantly, the Tribunal also noted the email it received from the applicants on 6 June 2024 seeking reinstatement of their application for review which was sent to the Tribunal at 11.32pm, being 28 minutes prior to the expiry of the 14-day deadline. The email sent to the Tribunal by the applicants on 6 June 2024 also contained a thread of email correspondence including the notice it sent to the applicants of the Dismissal Decision on 23 May 2024.
5. Accordingly, at paragraphs [8] - [9] of the Confirmation Decision, the Tribunal did not accept the explanation given by the applicants for their failure to attend the hearing and their reasons for seeking reinstatement of their application for review and rejected them in their entirety, consequently confirming the Dismissal Decision.

1. The applicants applied for judicial review of the Dismissal Decision on 2 May 2024. The Application contains the following grounds for judicial review (without amendment):
   1. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not provide another chance to appear for hearing.
   2. I provided detailed reasons for my absence within the timeframe set by the tribunal, but the AAT did not consider my request for reinstatement of the application and did not provide any further hearings.
   3. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal put more weightage on disposing of the case before them and not understanding my circumstances.
   4. The tribunal fell in error by not considering my intentions obtain medical treatment visa and how it will affect me if I do not get required medical attention on time.
   5. I do have circumstances which affected my past visas which were not considered by AAT.
   6. The tribunal did not give attention to how this decision will affect me and my family.
   7. The tribunal did not accept/consider my past and present situation and dismissed the application.
   8. The tribunal failed to consider relevant circumstances in dismissing the application.
   9. The tribunal exercised its decision-making power reasonably and unconscionably.
   10. The genuine temporary entrant criteria have not been assessed correctly, the AAT did not give regard to it and decided to use their discretionary power disposing the application.
2. The applicants also relied on an affidavit filed 28 June 2024 in support of their Application (June Affidavit). The June Affidavit provides the following (without amendment):
   1. I, XXX Patel, am writing in reply to the decision made by Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 23 May 2024 to dismiss the application without further consideration and not to remit the visa application for Department of Home Affairs to review. I therefore want to apply for the federal circuit court to go through the case once again and for further consideration as I am not satisfied with the claims of minister of immigration and AAT. The tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Medical Treatment Visa.
   2. The decision to dismiss my application for review was based on my failure to attend the scheduled hearing. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal dismissed the case without making further efforts or arranging another hearing, failing to understand my circumstances for missing the hearing. Although I provided detailed reasons for my absence within the timeframe set by the tribunal, the AAT did not consider my request for reinstatement of the application and did not provide any further hearings.
   3. I believe that the Administrative Appeal Tribunal has erred in its application and has failed to decide my appeal in a fair manner. The visa refusal decision stated that I was using the Medical Treatment visa pathway to maintain ongoing residence, implying I did not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily. However, my circumstances were not understood, and my application was dismissed without a thorough assessment of my genuine intention. This raises questions about what factors were considered in determining my intention, why my specific circumstances were overlooked, and how I can appeal or provide additional evidence to support my genuine intent to stay temporarily.
   4. The decision record from my earlier visa application indicated that there is no record of non-compliance with the conditions of my last substantive visa or my Bridging Visa. It was stated that I substantially complied with all conditions attached to both visas. Despite this compliance, the application was dismissed without a thorough assessment of my genuine intention to stay temporarily. This raises questions about what factors were considered in determining my intention, why my specific circumstances were overlooked, and how I can appeal or provide additional evidence to support my genuine intent.
   5. In my earlier application, I stated that I am self-funded and agreed not to undertake study or training for more than three months. Based on this information, it was determined that I intend to comply with the conditions of the Medical Treatment visa. Despite this, my application was dismissed, raising concerns about the thoroughness of the assessment of my genuine intention to stay temporarily and the factors considered in making the decision.
   6. The decision claimed to have carefully considered and weighed the available evidence, concluding that I do not genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for medical treatment and that my incentives to remain outweigh those to return to India. However, no efforts were made to gather additional evidence beyond what was initially available to clarify my intentions and circumstances, leading to an incomplete and potentially biased assessment of my genuine intention to stay temporarily for medical treatment.
   7. I seek a review of the Decision by the AAT to be quashed and reconsidered on legal merits and compassionate grounds.
   8. I therefore would request you to give my chance to explain about circumstances and situation into the court where I can prove myself, my intentions with supporting evidence.

1. The hearing took place on 10 March 2026.
2. The applicants appeared on their own behalf with the assistance of an interpreter in the Gujarati and English language. The Minister was represented by Ms Ward, solicitor, of the Australian Government Solicitor.

1. A "privative clause decision" as defined at s 474 of the Act is final and not amenable to judicial review in any Court. Absent identification of jurisdictional error, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of the Tribunal's decision: s 476 of the Act; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476 at [76].
2. The task on judicial review is not to undertake a general review of the decision or to substitute it with a decision which the Court may consider 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 that the matter be remitted and reconsidered according to law: Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 at [175].

1. Section 360A of the Act (at the relevant time) provided the following:

(1) If the applicant is invited to appear before the Tribunal, the Tribunal must give the applicant notice of the day on which, and the time and place at which, the applicant is scheduled to appear.

(2) The notice must be given to the applicant:

(a) except where paragraph (b) applies - by one of the methods specified in section 379A; or

(b) if the applicant is in immigration detention - by a method prescribed for the purposes of giving documents to such a person.

1. Section 362B of the Act (at the relevant time) provided the following:

362B Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal

Scope

(1) This section applies if the applicant:

(a) is invited under section 360 to appear before the Tribunal;

but

(b) does not appear before the Tribunal on the day on which, or at the time and place at which, the applicant is scheduled to appear.

Tribunal may make a decision on the review or dismiss proceedings

(1A) The Tribunal may:

(a) by written statement under section 368, make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it; or

(b) by written statement under section 362C, dismiss the application without any further consideration of the application or information before the Tribunal.

(1B) If the Tribunal dismisses the application, the applicant may, within 14 days after receiving notice of the decision under section 362C, apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application.

(1C) On application for reinstatement in accordance with subsection (1B), the Tribunal must:

(a) if it considers it appropriate to do so - reinstate the application, and give such directions as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, by written statement under section 362C; or

(b) confirm the decision to dismiss the application, by written statement under section 368.

1. Section 362C(5) of the Act (at the relevant time) provided the following:

362C Failure to appear - Tribunal's decisions, written statements and notifying the applicant

...

Notice to the applicant

(5) The Tribunal must notify the applicant of a non-appearance decision by giving the applicant a copy of the written statement made under subsection (2). The copy must be given to the applicant:

(a) within 14 days after the day on which the decision is taken to have been made; and

(b) by one of the methods specified in section 379A.

1. The Application raises grounds in relation to the Delegate's decision. To the extent that the Application relies on these grounds, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the Delegate's decision as it is a primary decision: s 476(2)(a) of the Act.
2. At the hearing the applicants were asked to address the Court as to each of the grounds contained in the Application and the matters referred to in the June Affidavit however they were unable to meaningfully do so. Those matters which were raised by the applicants orally are addressed later in this decision.

1. By Ground 1 the applicants submit that the Tribunal did not give them another opportunity to appear at a hearing and I infer that in doing so, the applicants contend that the Tribunal erred.
2. I reject that contention.
3. The Hearing Invitation provided to the applicants by the Tribunal on 17 April 2024 complied with the requirements of s 360A of the Act. The Hearing Invitation was sent to the Applicant's Email Address, being, the email address provided for correspondence in connection with the applicants' application for review. When the applicants did not appear at the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal was entitled to dismiss the application for review for non-appearance pursuant to s 362B(1A)(b) of the Act.
4. Following the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application for review for non-appearance the Tribunal notified the applicants of the Dismissal Decision and advised the applicants of the option to seek reinstatement of the application within 14 days pursuant to s 362C(5) of the Act.
5. After the applicants applied to the Tribunal for reinstatement, the Tribunal considered that application and refused it, pursuant to s 362(1C)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal's reasons for doing so are set out in the Confirmation Decision.
6. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal was not required to invite the applicants to a further hearing.
7. In the Dismissal Decision the Tribunal made references to two provisions contained in Part 7 of the Act. The Tribunal erroneously referred to ss 425 and 441A(5) of the Act, where ss 360 and 379A(5) of the Act respectively should have been referred. The Minister concedes this but submits that these errors were not material. The Minister contends that these provisions contained the same requirements, namely that the applicants had been properly invited to the hearing and that the Hearing Invitation was properly sent to the applicants at the nominated email address in connection with their application for review. Whilst errors of this type are regrettable and ought not occur (Dass v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 40 (Dass) at [25] - [27]), I accept the Minister's submissions. The Tribunal correctly understood that it had the power to dismiss the application for non-appearance, and I also note that the correct provisions are referred to by the Tribunal in the Confirmation Decision.
8. Accordingly, Ground 1 discloses no jurisdictional error.

1. By Ground 2 the applicants contend that the Tribunal did not consider their request for reinstatement despite providing detailed reasons for their absence within the timeframe set by the Tribunal.
2. That submission must be rejected. The Confirmation Decision clearly articulates the Tribunal's consideration of whether to reinstate the applicants' application for review. Pursuant to s 362B(1C) of the Act the Tribunal was required to, at its discretion, either reinstate the application, if it was satisfied it was appropriate to do so, or confirm the Dismissal Decision. It is uncontested that the Tribunal was required to exercise this discretion reasonably. As submitted by the Minister, I consider that the Tribunal's decision to confirm the Dismissal Decision was reasonable in circumstances where:

(1) the reason the applicants' gave for their failure to attend the hearing was that they had engaged an agent who created and used a different email to apply for review by the Tribunal and that this agent did not notify the applicants of the hearing date, however, the Tribunal found there was no evidence that the applicants had ever been represented by an agent. The evidence before the Court is that in the application for review:

(a) in response to the question "Do you want to appoint a representative to act on your behalf and to be your authorised recipient?" at Part F, question 19, the Applicant ticked "No";

(b) at Part G, question 23 requests information be sent to the Applicant at the email address (being the Applicant's Email Address); and

(c) the request for reinstatement was sent from the Applicant's Email Address;

(2) the Tribunal had been successfully corresponding with the applicants since 13 April 2023 at the same email address from which the request for reinstatement had been sent;

(3) the Tribunal had received no return to sender or delivery failure notifications and its prior correspondence to the applicants formed part of the thread of emails forwarded from the applicants to the Tribunal in their request for reinstatement on 6 June 2024; and

(4) the Tribunal ultimately rejected the applicants' explanation and reasons.

1. The Tribunal's findings in the Confirmation Decision had an evident and intelligible justification and were not unreasonable.
2. Accordingly, Ground 2 discloses no jurisdictional error.

1. It is convenient to address Grounds 3 - 8 collectively as they concern the contention that the Tribunal failed to consider the merits of the applicants' Visa Applications and the legislative criteria for the grant of the visas.
2. To the extent that Grounds 3 - 8 and 10 express dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's decision, the applicants seek impermissible merits review. Merits review is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors [1996] HCA 6; 185 CLR 259 at [272] per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ.
3. To the extent that they contend that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider the Applicant's medical claims, it is misconceived. In considering whether to dismiss the application for review for non-appearance pursuant to s 362B(1A)(b) of the Act or confirm that decision pursuant to s 362(1C)(b), the Tribunal was not required to consider the merits of the review application.
4. Finally, if by these grounds the applicants contend that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider the Applicant's medical claims, it also must fail. Section 362B(1C) required the Tribunal to consider whether it was appropriate to reinstate the review application having regard to all of the circumstances advanced to support reinstatement: Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 184; (2018) 266 FCR 459 (Singh) at [29] - [30]. The reasons given by the Applicant were solely based on the alleged failure of the agent to notify the applicants of the hearing. The Applicant did not raise as a relevant consideration the merits of his medical claims and the Tribunal was therefore not required to consider them: Singh at [43] - [46].
5. Accordingly, none of these grounds disclose jurisdictional error.

1. By Ground 9 the applicants contend that the Tribunal exercised its power unreasonably and unconscionably in disposing of the application for review.
2. For the reasons set out above, that submission also must fail.
3. Ground 9 does not disclose jurisdictional error.

1. In oral submissions the applicants submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that they faced financial hardship as they had no working rights. This submission must be rejected.
2. Firstly, the visa applied for by the Applicant, and that which was the subject of the review application before the Tribunal, was a Medical Treatment (Subclass 602) (Visitor) visa. The applicants' working rights were therefore irrelevant. Secondly, the issues before the Tribunal were the applicants' non-appearance at the hearing and subsequent request for reinstatement. As set out earlier, the applicants' submissions in relation to reinstatement were solely directed at the alleged involvement of the applicants' agent.
3. Accordingly, the applicants' working rights were not at issue before the Tribunal and have no role to play in the Court's review of the Tribunal's decisions.
4. No jurisdictional error is disclosed on these grounds.

1. As set out above, the matters raised in the June Affidavit largely mirror the grounds contained in the Application. However, the June Affidavit also raises matters in relation to compliance with visa conditions and the Applicant's intention to stay in Australia temporarily. The June Affidavit, relevantly, contends that the Tribunal concluded, after "carefully consider[ing] and weigh[ing] the available evidence" that the Applicant did not "genuinely intend to stay temporarily in Australia for medical treatment and that the First Applicant's incentives to remain in Australia outweigh those to return to India."
2. These submissions must be rejected. Firstly, the Applicant's compliance with visa conditions was, for the reasons already articulated, irrelevant to the Tribunal's task in both the Dismissal Decision and the Confirmation Decision. Secondly, the Tribunal did not consider and weigh any evidence in relation to the Applicant's medical treatment visa application nor, for the reasons already set out above, was it required to do so.
3. No jurisdictional error is disclosed on these grounds.

1. As submitted by the Minister, the Applicant and second applicant made separate visa applications and subsequently there were separate delegate decisions made in respect of each applicant. In order to seek merits review of those decisions, the applicants were required to lodge separate review applications with the Tribunal, however, only the Applicant applied for review. The second applicant did not make a valid application for review and thus the Tribunal was unable to treat their review application as a combined application for review. The Minister correctly submits that the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to conduct a review with respect of the second applicant, who decided not to seek review of the decision made in relation to her visa application.
2. The Minister concedes that to the extent that the Tribunal subsequently proceeded as if it had jurisdiction in the review in relation to the second applicant (by including her name in correspondence and its decision record), this was an error. That this further error was made is most regrettable and once again, ought not have occurred. However, I accept the submission that it does not rise to jurisdictional error. As was observed by the High Court in CRI026 v The Republic of Nauru [2018] HCA 19 at [57]:

It is unfortunate that such an error should have been permitted to occur. It suggests a lack of care in final proof reading of reasons for which all three members of the Tribunal were responsible - but the principal burden of which falls on the presiding member - that should not have occurred and should not be repeated. Such errors are likely to create doubts about the validity of decisions which should not arise. Nevertheless, reading the Tribunal's reasons as a whole, it is plain beyond peradventure that in this case it was not an error in the reasoning process of the kind for which the appellant contended and should be disregarded: falsa demonstratio non nocet.

1. More recently in Dass at [25] - [27] Owens J observed:

It is entirely understandable that an applicant, presented with reasons for decision of the Tribunal that contain internal inconsistencies, typographical and other errors or infelicities, might feel as if his or her application had not been treated with the seriousness and care appropriate to the significance of the human impact of the outcome. They may harbour a concern that the Tribunal did not reason rigorously to its ultimate stated conclusion. They may persuade themselves that the Tribunal's true subjective reasons are not reflected in the construction ultimately given to the decision. I can imagine that many applicants in such a situation would find it difficult to take complete comfort from a decision of a judge that, despite what the Tribunal said, it is plain that it meant something else. The end result is that a stain attaches to the legitimacy of a lawful decision in the eyes of the one person to whom it is most important that it appear flawless

Fundamentally, it seems to me, that is the most important reason why it is unfortunate that unnecessary doubts about the validity of a decision should be created by carelessness. It is not, for example, because of the potential for the generation of expensive and time-consuming litigation (although that is, no doubt, an important reason in itself). It is because there is a human being whose life has been irreparably changed as a result of a decision of the Tribunal, and who may, with some justification, feel that his or her case was not given the attention it deserved.

Nevertheless, for the reasons I have given, I consider it to be clear beyond peradventure that the errors upon which the applicant relies are, indeed, simply unfortunate, and regrettable, errors that do not conceal the Tribunal's true reasoning process, and which do not reveal any jurisdictional error.

1. Further, there would be no utility in ordering the relief sought. If the matter were remitted to the Tribunal, the Tribunal would be bound to find that it had no jurisdiction, in circumstances where the review application was not lodged within 21 days after the day on which she was advised of the Delegate's decision and there is no ability to extend time: s 347 of the Act; reg 4.10(1)(a) of the Regulations; BWM23 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 316 at [6] per Perram J; Rana v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1233 at [2], [3] and [22] per Wigney J_._ The Court also notes that on 13 April 2023 the Tribunal advised the applicants that separate applications for review were required and on 17 April 2023 the Applicant advised the Tribunal that the second applicant would not seek review of the Delegate's decision.

1. For the above reasons, the Application must be dismissed.
2. The Minister seeks an order that the applicants pay its costs in the fixed amount of $5,400. I note that this is below the scale provided in sch 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) for a proceeding concluded at final hearing. I shall order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding seventy-one (71) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge J Young.