Raza v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 284

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. The first applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Visa. The second and third applicants were dependents of the first applicant. The success of their visa applications depended upon the success of the application for review filed in this Court's registry on behalf of the first applicant.
2. On 13 August 2021, a delegate of the Minister notified the applicant by email that his visa application had been refused under the provisions of s. 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). [1] The email was sent to the first applicant's personal email address which had been recorded on the applicants' visa application as the contact address for correspondence to be sent concerning such application. [2]
3. Pursuant to the provisions of s. 347(1)(b) of the Act and reg. 4.10 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations), an application for review of the decision of the delegate by the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal had to be made by the applicant within 21 days after the applicant had been notified of the decision of the delegate.
4. At the hearing before the Court, it was conceded on behalf of the applicant that the application for review of the decision of the delegate by the Tribunal was not made within the relevant time period.
5. On 25 January 2022, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the first applicant's application for review of the decision of the delegate because the application for such review had been made out of time. [3]
6. On 25 February 2022, the applicants filed an Originating Application for Review of the decision of the Tribunal.

1. The Grounds of Review relied upon at the time of the hearing before the Court were as follows:
   1. This application is sought under s 5(1)(a) of the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review Act) Act 1977 ("the Act"). That a breach of the rules of natural justice has occurred, or is likely to occur, in connection with the conduct.
   2. The Applicant submits that the Tribunal failed to consider material, compelling and compassionate evidence in the matter and deemed the primary application of the application invalid constituting a jurisdictional error.
   3. That the applicant submitted corroborative and factual evidence before the hearing, not giving a preference over a technical mistake would deem unreasonable in the power and function of the Tribunal and therefore, the matter should be adequately tried before the Tribunal.
   4. That the Tribunal failed to adhere in relation to s 5(1)(g) of the (ADJR) the High Court has found in SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship that a fraud committed against the tribunal by the applicant's migration agent, where the applicant and the tribunal itself were innocent of any fraud, can result in a jurisdictional error. Therefore, the prevailing scenario also reflects on similar facts and therefore a Jurisdictional error has occurred.
   5. That the Tribunal failed to consider doctrines of S476 of the migration act in its application of jurisdiction.
2. It was submitted on behalf of the first respondent that no jurisdictional error had been established on the part of the Tribunal. It was further submitted that the Act and Regulations made no provision for any extension of time for the making of an application for review of a decision of the delegate. [4] The Court accepts such submission.
3. In Calimoso v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1335 at [29] per Charlesworth J, it was held that the Tribunal had no discretion to extend the time in which an application may be made. That judgement was cited with approval in Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 228 at [49] per McKerracher, Reeves and Thawley JJ.
4. In the joint judgement of Keane CJ, Collier and Logan JJ in Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCAFC 27 at [49], it was held as follows:

[49] It is necessary to understand that the rights enjoyed by the appellants as visa holder were created by the Act, and the Act determined the extent of those rights and the conditions on which they might continue to be enjoyed. Parliament has made it quite clear that the rights of review conferred on the appellants were to be exercised within a short time frame. This time frame may not be extended by officers of the Executive Government, the Tribunal or the Courts. It is a matter for the Legislature to fix the time limits for the exercise of the rights conferred by the Act; neither officers of the Executive Government, nor the Tribunal, nor the Courts, have authority to set aside or vary the provisions made by Parliament.

1. The submissions made on behalf of the applicants did not have regard to binding Court authority.
2. The applicants have failed to establish jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
3. The Grounds of Review are without merit and the Application for Review is accordingly dismissed.
4. The Court will hear the parties as to costs.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan.

[1] The applicants' lawyer conceded at the hearing before the Court that the email had been received by the

first applicant at his email address on 13 August 2021.

[2] See email address at Exhibit 1 - Court Book (CB) p. 18.

[4] Awon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 846 at [18] per Beach J.