Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1363

1. By way of Application filed on 30 July 2019, the applicant (Applicant) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal) (formerly the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) dated 2 July 2019 (Tribunal's Decision), pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act).
2. In the Tribunal's Decision the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate (Delegate) of the First Respondent (Minister) not to grant the Applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Student (Subclass 500) visa (Visa) on the basis that the Applicant did not satisfy the intention to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily for the Visa pursuant to cl 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations).
3. The hearing of the Application took place at the Melbourne Registry of the Court on 20 August 2025 (Hearing). The Minister was represented by a solicitor. The Applicant was self-represented with the assistance of a Punjabi 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 dispute is whether the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in determining that it was not satisfied that the Applicant was a genuine student, with a genuine intention to reside temporarily in Australia.

1. The Applicant is a citizen of India.
2. On 30 May 2008, the Applicant first arrived in Australia as the holder of a dependent Student (Subclass 573) visa.[2]
3. On 7 March 2011, the Applicant departed Australia.[3]
4. On 27 September 2017, the Applicant subsequently returned to Australia as the holder of a Tourist (Class FA 600) visa.[4]
5. On 15 December 2017, the Applicant applied for the Visa,[5] the subject of these proceedings, based on his enrolment in:[6]

(a) Certificate IV in English as an Additional Language (Further Study); and

(b) Diploma of Leadership and Management.

1. On 12 March 2018, a Delegate of the Minister refused to grant the Visa (Delegate's Decision) on the basis that they were not satisfied that the Applicant had the intention to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily for the Visa pursuant to cl 500.212(a) of the Regulations.[7]
2. On 21 March 2018, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review (Review Application).[8]
3. On 22 March 2018, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Review Application.[9]
4. On 14 May 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the Applicant with an invitation to provide further information by 28 May 2019.[10]
5. On 28 May 2019, the Applicant provided an undated but partially completed Visa information form to the Tribunal.[11]
6. On 13 June 2019, the Tribunal invited the Applicant to attend a hearing on 2 July 2019.[12]
7. On 2 July 2019, the Applicant attended the hearing on his own behalf.[13] The Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's Decision on date same (Tribunal's Decision).[14]
8. On 16 July 2019, the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal and requested that written reasons of the Tribunal's Decision be provided.[15]
9. On 23 August 2019, the Tribunal provided written reasons for the Tribunal's Decision made on 2 July 2019.[16]

1. The Tribunal's Decision is at 112 to 114 of the Court Book.
2. The Tribunal first outlined the procedural background to the matter and the purpose of the Tribunal in relation to the Review Application: Tribunal's Decision [1] to [6].
3. The Tribunal identified the critical issue on review as being whether the Applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.
4. The Tribunal had regard to the Applicant's circumstances, including his study and immigration history. The Tribunal noted with concern that the Applicant had not commenced any of his studies, despite being enrolled.[17] The Applicant provided a genuine temporary entrant statement to the Tribunal which indicated that he was misguided in terms of his study rights. In oral evidence, the Applicant confirmed that he had not been studying whilst awaiting the outcome of the Tribunal's hearing for fear of breaching his Visa conditions.[18]
5. The Tribunal gave weight to the value of the proposed courses as well as his study history and was not satisfied that the Applicant was genuine temporary entrant pursuant to cl 500.212 of the Regulations. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was using the visitor visa program to circumvent scrutiny of his student Visa application and bypass migration protocols.[19] When asked about his career ambitions, the Applicant's claims appeared to be "general and ambiguous".[20] The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant intended to reside in Australia temporarily pursuant to the Visa.
6. The Tribunal considered the Applicant's circumstances in his home country. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant appeared to have no immediate family in India, no evidence of substantial assets other than a general claim to owning a family farm, and that all of his immediate family resided in Australia.[21] The Tribunal found that the Applicant had very little incentive to return to India.[22]
7. The Tribunal upheld the Delegate's Decision.[23]

1. On 30 July 2019, the 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 30 January 2025, Orders were made by Registrar Lindsay of this Court for the name of the First Respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. For the First Respondent to file and serve, no later than two weeks from the date of the Orders: a copy of the 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. For the First Respondent to file and serve at least 7 days before the hearing, an Affidavit of Service of the Court Book, written submissions and any additional evidence.
3. This matter was heard on 20 August 2025 for a Final Hearing before me.
4. When the matter was initially called on for hearing at 10:00am, the Applicant did not appear, and I dismissed the Application pursuant to r 13.07 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (GFL Rules). The Applicant subsequently arrived at Court at 10:10am. The Applicant then filed an Interlocutory Application and accompanying Affidavit to set aside the Orders made by me dismissing the Application. These Orders were consented to by both parties and the matter was heard at 2:30pm on date same.
5. The Applicant relied upon the following documents:

(a) The Application, filed 30 July 2019;

(b) The Affidavit of the Applicant, affirmed on 29 July 2019 and filed 30 July 2019 (Applicant's Affidavit);

(c) Interlocutory Application, filed 20 August 2025; and

(d) Affidavit of the Applicant, affirmed and filed 20 August 2025.

(a) The Response, filed 8 August 2019;

(b) The Minister's Outline of Submissions, filed 6 August 2025;

(c) Affidavit of Service of Jonathan Indrajit Sathiendrakumar, affirmed and filed 14 August 2025; and

(d) List of Authorities, filed 19 August 2025.

1. Both parties relied on the Court Book.
2. The Application contains the following grounds of review (Grounds of Review).
   1. Ministerial directions 69 have not been considered well by the Review Member, as only economic disparities have been accessed amongst two countries i.e. India and Australia; despite of my assets which I hold in my home country provide a very good reason for me to return back after finishing my studies. (Ground 1).
   2. As per the clause 500.212, the genuine temporary entrant criterion includes the past immigration history and relevancy between study undertaken so far in the past and future enrolments which are intended by me to proceed for further study. Hence, I seek judicial review so that my relevancy of study can be measured well and my refusal could be please remitted back to Department of Home affairs for their further consideration. (Ground 2).
   3. I would like to seek judicial review of honourable member so that my potential circumstances in my home country could be please re - evaluated and I could address the genuine temporary entrant criterion so as to adhere to the clause 500.212 on the basi sof my intended enrolment for my future study plan (Ground 3).
   4. In accordance with the sec 499 of the Migration Act my past immigration history is always been in good terms as I have never intended to breach any of the visa conditions. (Ground 4).
   5. Hence kindly grant me an opportunity to seek judicial review to support review application of my student visa refusal given by the Review Member. (Ground 5).

1. The Interlocutory Application contained the following ground for reinstatement of the Application (Reinstatement Ground):

I want my case reopen and I want to go study. I am waiting of my dicision so I can study here. I don't have work rights during these seven years so its hard for me to pay $5000. I am waiting for long time of my final hearing please could you please reopen my case and provide me the dicision.

(Words as written)

1. The Applicant did not file written submissions.
2. The Applicant sought to lead oral evidence from his sisters Rajwinder and Karamjit Kaur.
3. The evidence that the Applicant sought to adduce was that:

(a) They would explain that he came here as a student;

(b) They would explain that he lives here with his sister (or possibly sisters);

(c) They would explain his stay and his application for a visa;

(d) He was studying here and applied for a student Visa, that it was refused, and that he is living with his family members; and

(e) He came here on a dependent visa in 2008 and after arrival there were some family problems with his wife, and so he left in 2011. Subsequently, his sister applied for a tourist visa for him, however, the Applicant decided he wanted to study, and he returned to India. The Applicant then applied for a student visa which was refused.

1. I ruled against this oral application on the ground that the matters that the Applicant sought to adduce from the witnesses were irrelevant to the Application for judicial review before me.
2. Further, the Applicant did not comply with Orders made by Registrar Lindsay on 30 January 2025, to file and serve any further evidence within 28 days of the hearing.
3. The Applicant and his sister, Karamjit (with leave) made submissions to the Court in support of the Application. Their submissions emphasised the Applicant's desire to study in Australia, and the support that his sisters who live in Australia can provide him.

1. The Minister submits that the Tribunal did not err on any of the Grounds of Review and that the Application fails to establish jurisdictional error in respect to the Tribunal's Decision.

1. By these grounds, the Applicant alleges that the Tribunal failed to give proper consideration to the factors in Ministerial Direction 69 (Direction 69). The Minister submits that the Tribunal correctly assessed the Applicant's circumstances against the relevant genuine temporary entrant criteria and Direction 69.
2. The Tribunal made findings that were open to it based on the Applicant's own claims to conclude that the Applicant was not a genuine student for the purposes of the Visa.[24] The weight given to the evidence before the Tribunal was a matter for it alone.[25] At its highest, the Minister submits that these grounds otherwise request the Court to engage in impermissible merits review.[26]
3. The Minister submits that Ground 1 should fail given that the Tribunal explicitly considered the Applicant's assets and found that he failed to adduce any evidence of owning substantive assets in India, other than a generalised and uncorroborated claim of owning a farm in the family name.[27]
4. The Minister submits that Grounds 2 and 4 also fail in circumstances where the Tribunal did in fact consider the Applicant's immigration history, visa compliance and enrolment history. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal held concerns around the Applicant's lack of studies despite being enrolled, and his vague career ambitions.[28]
5. The Minister notes that Ground 3 does not contend any error on the part of the Tribunal and otherwise requests the Court to engage in impermissible merits review.

1. The Minister submits that Ground 5 merely requests an opportunity to seek judicial review and is not a proper ground of review.
2. The Minister expanded upon his written submissions in oral submissions.

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.[29]
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.[30] 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.[31]
4. The Court may grant relief if it is satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is affected by jurisdictional error.[32] 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".[33] Different kinds of error may overlap.[34] The categories are not closed.[35]
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.[36] This is to be determined as "a matter of reasonable conjecture within the parameters set by the historical facts that have been determined".[37] It has been described as an "undemanding" standard.[38]

1. 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 grant of the visa (as prescribed by the Migration Act or the Regulations) has been satisfied, and to refuse to grant the visa, if not satisfied.
2. The criteria that the Applicant was required to satisfy for the grant of a Student Visa (Subclass 500) are set out in cl 500.211 to 500.218 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations.[39]
3. Clause 500.211 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations provides:
   1. the applicant is enrolled in a course of study;
   2. if the application is made in Australia - the applicant is seeking to remain in Australia because the relevant educational institution requires the applicant to do so during the marking of the applicant's postgraduate thesis;
   3. if the applicant is a Foreign Affairs student-the applicant has the support of the Foreign Minister for the grant of the visa;
   4. if the applicant is a Defence student-the applicant has the support of the Defence Minister for the grant of the visa.
4. Clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations provides:

The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

1. the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
   1. the applicant's circumstances; and
   2. the applicant's immigration history; and
   3. if the applicant is a minor - the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
   4. any other relevant matter; and
2. the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:
   1. the applicant's record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and
   2. the applicant's stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and
3. because of any other relevant matter.

Intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily

1. In Eros v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs,[40] Allsop CJ stated:[41]

It is important to focus on the words of cl 500.212. First, the chapeau contains a whole idea or conception: "a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student". This expresses a criterion that will involve value judgments about the applicant and his or her genuineness to enter and stay as a student. The last, emphasised, words were the subject of submissions and debate. They should not be disconnected from the text, structure and purpose of the whole clause.

The expression is followed by the word "because" and a list of various matters in subcll (a)(i)-(iv), (b)(i)-(ii) and (c), to which the decision-maker looks, overall, to come to a state of satisfaction about the contents of the chapeau. A plain reading of cl 500.212 leads to the conclusion that the satisfaction as to whether the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student is reached by reason of the particular criteria in subcll 500.212(a), (b) and (c), and not otherwise. That said the width of subcll (a)(iv) and (c) are to be recognised: that is "any other relevant matter". Such a wide frame of reference is, of course, limited by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of cl 500.212: Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (New South Wales) v Browning (1947) 74 CLR 492 at 505.

Ministerial directions 69 have not been considered well by the Review Member, as only economic disparities have been accessed amongst two countries i.e. India and Australia; despite of my assets which I hold in my home country provide a very good reason for me to return back after finishing my studies.

1. Section 499(1) of the Migration Act provides that the Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under this Act if the directions are about (a) the performance of those functions; or (b) the exercise of those powers. Section 499(2A) of the Migration Act provides that a person or body (which would include the Tribunal) must comply with a direction given under s 499(1).[42]
2. Direction 69 "provides guidance to decision makers on what factors require consideration when assessing" the genuine temporary entrant criterion and the matters in cl 500.212.
3. While a decision-maker must comply with written direction made pursuant to s 499,[43] Direction 69 provides that it "is only to guide decision makers" and identifies factors the decision maker "should have regard to".
4. In Kaur v Minister for Home Affairs[44] Steward J held[45] that what the Tribunal must do in a case concerning the application of cl 500.212(a) is make a finding of fact about whether an applicant does or does not intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, and for that purpose apply the four factors prescribed by cl 500.212(a); namely the applicant's circumstances, the applicant's immigration history; if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of the parent, legal guardian or spouse; and any other relevant matter.
5. His Honour held that Direction 69 should be used as a "guide" in applying the four factors in cl 500.212(a), that the factors in the Direction "should" be considered, rather than "must" be considered, and that the Direction should not be applied by way of a "checklist".
6. His Honour held that the factors in Direction 69 which a decision-maker must take into account are those "which have been the subject of substantial, clearly articulated claims made by the visa applicant".[46] A failure to consider and engage with such a claim may constitute jurisdictional error. Alternatively, a failure to consider a claim engaging a factor listed in Direction 69 that is apparent on the face of the material before the Tribunal and which "clearly emerged" from that material may constitute jurisdictional error.
7. On the question of economic disparities, the Tribunal found that:[47]

The Tribunal takes into account the economic circumstances and political climate in the applicant's home country, relative the economic and political conditions in Australia and finds that the disparity between the two offers a further incentive for him to seek to use the Student visa program to maintain ongoing residence in Australia. This is particularly the case, given that most of the applicant's immediate family are currently in Australia, although some of them are here on an extended temporary basis, it appears there is very little incentive for the applicant to wish to return to his home country of India.

1. On the question of assets held by the Applicant at home, the Tribunal found that:[48]

The Tribunal has regard to the applicant's circumstances in his home country. His father has passed away. His mother is an Indian citizen but is currently visiting Australia on a three-year Tourist visa. He has a brother and sister who are Singapore nationals. They are also in Australia in Perth on extended work assignment. The applicant has another sister, who is an Australian citizen and living in Melbourne. He also has an uncle and aunt in Australia. The applicant appears to have no immediate family back in India. He did not give evidence of owning any substantial assets back in India, although he did explain that he has a farm in the family name.

1. It is plain that the Tribunal did "take into account" both the Applicant's economic circumstances and the circumstances in his home country. First, the Applicant appears to acknowledge that the Tribunal considered "economic disparities" between India and Australia.[49] Second, the Applicant appears to complain that the Tribunal did not have regard, or sufficient regard, to "my assets which I hold in my home country". On this latter question, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not give evidence of personally owning substantial assets in India.[50] To the extent that the true complaint concerns the weight given by the Tribunal to farm in the family name, that was a matter for the Tribunal.[51]
2. I am not satisfied that the Tribunal's reasoning, fact finding or conclusion were unreasonable[52] or otherwise flawed.
3. I am not satisfied that jurisdictional error is made out by reference to Ground 1.

As per the clause 500.212, the genuine temporary entrant criterion includes the past immigration history and relevancy between study undertaken so far in the past and future enrolments which are intended by me to proceed for further study. Hence, I seek judicial review so that my relevancy of study can be measured well and my refusal could be please remitted back to Department of Home affairs for their further consideration.

In accordance with the sec 499 of the Migration Act my past immigration history is always been in good terms as I have never intended to breach any of the visa conditions.

1. Both Grounds 2 and 4 refer to the Applicant's "past immigration history".
2. Clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations sets out the matters that bear upon the requirement that "the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student". One of those matters is that "the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily", which in turn requires consideration of four matters including "the applicant's immigration history".
3. The Tribunal Decision does set out the Applicant's immigration history:

According to the information before it, the applicant initially arrived in Australia as a dependent on a Student subclass 573 visa. He arrived on 30 May 2008 as a dependent to his then wife's visa. He is now divorced, and he departed Australia on 7 March 2011. The applicant was subsequently granted a Tourist (subclass 600) visa offshore, on 21 September 2017 and arrived in Australia on 27 September 2017. That Tourist (subclass 600) visa allowing him a stay of three months on each arrival.

1. The Applicant's contention would appear to be that his immigration history has always been "in good terms" and that he has not breached any visa conditions.
2. The Tribunal's conclusion was expressed in the following terms:[53]

Having considered the applicant's circumstances as a whole, including the factors in Direction 69, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine Student, with a genuine intention to reside temporarily in Australia. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet clause 500.212.

1. It is apparent from the terms of the Tribunal's Decision, that it did have regard to clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations and Ministerial Direction 69, including, in particular, the Applicant's immigration history. I can discern no error in relation to the Tribunal's approach to these matters.
2. Ground 2 refers to the relevance of study undertaken so far and future enrolments.
3. The Tribunal would appear to have addressed these matters:[54]

When asked about his career ambitions, based on his choice of his subjects, the applicant's explanations appear to be very general and ambiguous and appear to be expressed in terms that suggest that they are not his own words. The applicant expressed a career ambition to find work here, should he be allowed to complete his studies and was not convincing in describing any career ambitions back in his home country or elsewhere overseas.

1. These conclusions were open to the Tribunal on the material before it. Once again, I can discern no error in relation to the Tribunal's approach to these matters. I am far from satisfied that the Tribunal's reasoning, fact finding or conclusion in relation to Grounds 2 and 4 were unreasonable[55] or otherwise flawed.
2. I am not satisfied that jurisdictional error is made out by reference to Grounds 2 and 4.

I would like to seek judicial review of honourable member so that my potential circumstances in my home country could be please re - evaluated and I could address the genuine temporary entrant criterion so as to adhere to the clause 500.212 on the basis of my intended enrolment for my future study plan

Hence kindly grant me an opportunity to seek judicial review to support review application of my student visa refusal given by the Review Member.

1. Grounds 3 and 5 appear to be a plea for remitter. No jurisdictional error is identified.
2. I am not satisfied that jurisdictional error is made out by reference to Grounds 3 and 5.

1. As the Applicant has not established that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error, and where I have not otherwise been able to discern jurisdictional error,[56] the Application for review 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 $5,000 being less than the scale amount.[57] I am satisfied that the Minister is entitled to his costs in the proceedings on the basis that costs ought to follow the event.[58] I am further satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order for payment of the amount sought by the having regard to the scale and the extent of work undertaken as evidenced by the Court file.[59]

I certify that the preceding eighty-eight (88) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Fary.

[1] Orders made by Judge Fary on 20 August 2025, Order 2.

[24] Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 16 at [108].

[25] Tran v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 297 per Kiefel, RD Nicholson and Downes JJ at [5]-[7]; Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184; (2003) 75 ALR 630 per French, Sackville and Hely JJ at [46].

[26] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272; NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 at [10].

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

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

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

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

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

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

[40] (2020) 83 AAR 226.

[42] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection (2015) 256 CLR 204 (Uelese) at [19]; Bochenski v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 68; (2017) 347 ALR 45 at [65].

[43] See s 499(2A) and Uelese at [19].

[44] [2019] FCA 2026. See also Kaur v Minister for Immigration Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 670 esp at [15].

[51] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS [2010] HCA 48; (2010) 243 CLR 164 at [33].

[52] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 (SZMDS) at [130].

[56] 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].

[57] See Division 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

[58] Compare Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72.

[59] See 25.14 of Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) and Division 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 2.