Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 621

(a) in August 2017, the Applicant changed courses from a Bachelor of Business at Federation University (the course specified in his visa grant)[8] to a Bachelor of Business (Accounting) at Cambridge International College;

(b) in June 2018, the Applicant's enrolment at Cambridge International College was cancelled because his parents were no longer able to afford his tuition due to financial hardship;

(c) the Applicant's parents advised him to select a trade course that could assist him to start a business in India upon completion. As a result, the Applicant enrolled in automotive courses, and:

(i) had enrolled in and completed a Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology;

(ii) had enrolled in, and was due to complete (in October 2019) a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis;

(d) the Applicant had already paid $14,800 in tuition (out of $18,800) in respect of the automotive courses; and

(e) the Applicant intended to complete his studies, at a Bachelor's Degree level, provided his family's financial position improved.

1. On 22 October 2019, the Delegate notified the Applicant of their decision to cancel his Student Visa.[9] This power refusal is conferred on the Minister (and their Delegates by extension)[10] by s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).
2. In short, the Delegate:

(a) was satisfied that there existed grounds for cancellation under s 116(1)(b) of the Act, namely, the Applicant's non-compliance with the Condition;

(b) was satisfied, in considering whether or not to exercise their discretion, was satisfied that "the grounds for cancelling the visa outweigh the reasons not to cancel the visa". The Delegate noted the Applicant's claims of financial hardship, but was "unable to accept this as a factor mitigating the ground for cancellation" because no evidence was provided in support of this claim. The Delegate also noted that it was "open to [the Applicant] to lodge any other visa application that better suited his circumstances to remain in Australia".

1. By operation of the Act, this Court has no power to review the decision of the Delegate.[11]

1. On 24 October 2019, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate's decision.[12]
2. On 29 October 2019, the Tribunal acknowledged the application for review. Appended to this letter was an Information for refugee review applicants fact sheet.[13]
3. On 19 February 2020, the Tribunal invited the Applicant to attend a hearing scheduled for 6 March 2020.[14]
4. On 5 March 2020, the Applicant responded to the hearing invitation.[15]
5. The hearing proceeded as scheduled, with the Applicant assisted by a Punjabi interpreter.[16] At the end of the hearing, the Tribunal member orally delivered its decision to affirm the Delegate's cancellation of the Student Visa. Later that day, a letter was sent to the Applicant confirming the Tribunal's decision. The Applicant was notified he had 14 days to request a written statement of the decision. Appended to the letter was an Information about decisions fact sheet notifying the Applicant of his review rights.[17]
6. On 10 March 2020, the Applicant requested a written statement of the Tribunal decision.[18]
7. On 11 March 2020, the Tribunal forwarded the Applicant a copy of the Tribunal recording.[19]
8. On 17 April 2020, the Tribunal provided the Applicant a written decision record.

1. Condition 8202, at the time of the Tribunal decision, read as follows:

(1) The holder must be enrolled in a full-time course of study or training if the holder is:

(a) a Defence student; or

(b) a Foreign Affairs student; or

(c) a secondary exchange student.

(a) must be enrolled in a full-time registered course; and

(b) subject to subclause (3), must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted; and

(c) must ensure that neither of the following subparagraphs applies in respect of a registered course undertaken by the holder:

(i) the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course progress for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act;

(ii) the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act.

(3) A holder is taken to satisfy the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(b) if the holder:

(a) is enrolled in a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 10; and

(b) changes their enrolment to a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 9.

1. The Tribunal's decision is 6 pages long and spans 39 paragraphs.
2. At paragraphs 13 to 22 of their outline of submissions filed on 27 March 2026, 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:
   1. The Tribunal summarised the background of the matter and identified that the issues for determination were whether the applicant had breached condition 8202(2)(b) of Schedule 8 to the Regulations and, if so, whether the discretion to cancel the applicant's student visa should be exercised (CB 73 [1]-[8]).
   2. As the applicant had acknowledged his non-compliance with the relevant condition in his response to the NOICC (CB 73 [9]) and his oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing (CB 73 [10]), the Tribunal found he had not complied with condition 8202(2)(b) (CB 74 [11]) and turned its mind to considering the factors relevant in exercising the discretionary power to cancel the visa (CB 74 [12]).
   3. The Tribunal identified that the Act and Regulations did not specify the matters to be considered in the exercise of its discretion to cancel a visa, although it had regard to the circumstances of the case and matters in the Department's Procedures Advice Manual (CB 74 [12]).
   4. The Tribunal found that: the purpose of the applicant's travel and stay in Australia was to undertake an AQF level 7 course and that his enrolment in two Bachelor courses had been cancelled on 7 August 2017 and 29 June 2018 (CB 74 [13]-[14]). The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had a "good study history" before financial hardship befell his family (CB 74 [15]) and that at the time of its decision his father was able to pay for a Bachelor level course but he was unable to enrol because he did not have study rights attached to his Bridging visa (CB 74 [17]). However, it concluded it was clear that the applicant's current course of study did not comply with condition 8202(2)(b) and that the purpose of his visa had ended because he was not pursuing Bachelor level studies (CB 74 [18]). The Tribunal gave these factors "some weight" in favour of cancelling the visa (CB 74 [19]).
   5. In assessing the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose, the Tribunal considered the submission in the applicant's response to the NOICC that his non-compliance was an unintentional and honest mistake and his request that the Department not cancel his visa and permit him to complete his studies which were scheduled for completion on 14 June 2019 (CB 74 [20]). The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence at the hearing was "entirely consistent" with his written response to the NOICC (CB 75 [21]) and that he had acknowledged that he had not sought to defer his Bachelor course or contact the Department about his change in circumstances (CB 75 [22]). The Tribunal found that the circumstances which led to the cancellation of the visa were reasonably within the applicant's control because it was reasonable to expect visa holders to be aware of the conditions attached to their visas and that when applying for a student visa, they represented to the Department that they had sufficient funds to cover the cost of their tuition fees (CB 75 [23]). Accordingly, the Tribunal did not accept that the grounds which led to the cancellation of the visa were outside of the applicant's control and gave the matter weight towards the visa being cancelled (CB 75 [24]).
   6. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had given honest and candid evidence about the financial hardship he would face as a consequence of the visa cancellation (CB 75 [26]) and acknowledged that he was a diligent student. However, it found that his visa was not at the appropriate AQF level for the particular course he wished to complete (CB 75 [27]). While it accepted that "some hardship" would befall the applicant as a result of the cancellation, it gave the matter "little weight" ([CB 75 [28]).
   7. The Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant had responded to the NOICC and gave "some minor weight" in the applicant's favour to its finding that there was no evidence of anything other than "good behaviour" towards the Department and the Tribunal (CB 76 [29]).
   8. The Tribunal found that the cancellation of the visa would not result in any consequential cancellations under section 140 of the Act (CB 76 [30]) and that Australia's international obligations did not apply in the applicant's case (CB 76 [32]). It acknowledged that if the visa was cancelled, the applicant would be excluded from making certain types of applications for certain types of visas, and may be liable to detention if he did not depart the country but found that those consequences "would not be manifestly unfair", as they were the intended consequences of the legislation (CB 76 [31]).
   9. Having considered the applicant's candid evidence about his family's financial situation, the Tribunal did not accept that his inability to pay tuition fees was a matter that was beyond the applicant's control (CB 76 [33]). It gave "some minor weight" in the applicant's favour to the fact that that he was a diligent student (CB 76 [34]) and although it accepted that the applicant's breach of the visa condition did not reveal any bad faith on his part, the Tribunal concluded that it was occasioned by a matter that was within his control and that it was his responsibility to ensure that he had the funds to pay his tuition fees for his entire course when he applied for the student visa (CB 76 [35]).
   10. Having considered all the evidence before it and the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concluded that the visa should be cancelled and affirmed the decision under review (CB 76 [36]-[38]).

1. On 23 March 2020, the Applicant applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision (Originating Application).
2. The application is brought pursuant to section 476 of the Act, which confers upon this court, in relation to migration decisions, the "same original jurisdiction as the High Court under s 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."[20]
3. The application was brought within the 35-day time limit prescribed by section 477(1) of the Act.
4. The Applicant seeks orders of certiorari and mandamus and lists four grounds of review reproduced below.

1. On 7 April 2020, the First Respondent (Minister) filed its response, opposing the making of the orders sought by the Applicant. The Minister submitted that the Originating Application failed to establish any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision. The response was amended on 12 May 2025.
2. On 27 July 2020, the Minister filed a bundle of relevant documents (Court Book).
3. On 14 May 2025, a Registrar of this Court issued an Order (Registrar's Order) directing the:

(a) Applicant to file any amended application with proper particulars, written submissions and further evidence at least 28 days before final hearing; and

(b) Minister to file any written submissions and further evidence in reply at least 14 days before final hearing.

1. The Applicant did not file an amended application and nor did he provide further particulars of the grounds for judicial review, despite being invited to do so.
2. On 27 March 2026, the Minister:

(a) complied with the Registrar's Order by filing written submissions; and

(b) filed the Affidavit of Eleanor Hambly MacLaren. The Affidavit appended an exert of the Tribunal hearing transcript, in which the Applicant and Member discussed a request, made by the Applicant, for additional time to submit CoE certificates. In short, the Delegate accepted that the Applicant had applied for the certificates at the time of hearing.

(a) filed a bundle of authorities;

(b) filed an Affidavit of Service, which affirmed that the Minister's representatives had served the Applicant (via email) a copy of the Court Book as well as the Minister's submissions.

1. Therefore, the materials before the Court are as follows:

(a) the Originating Application filed 23 March 2020;

(b) a Court Book numbering 81 pages filed 27 July 2020 (marked as Exhibit R1);

(c) the Affidavit of Eleanor Hambly MacLaren (marked as Exhibit R2); and

(d) Written Submissions filed by the Minister on 27 March 2026.

(a) allocated to the Court as presently constituted on 13 February 2026;

(b) listed for hearing on 18 February 2026; and

(c) heard on 10 April 2026 in person at the Court's Melbourne Registry.

1. At the hearing, the Applicant appeared before the Court on their own behalf. The First Respondent was represented by Anthony Gardner, solicitor at Mills Oakley.
2. The Court confirmed with the Applicant that they 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:

(1) where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question;[21]

(2) where the decision-maker ignores relevant material;[22]

(3) where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material;[23]

(4) where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures;[24]

(5) where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias;[25] and

(6) where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable.[26]

1. It was also explained to the Applicant that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal's decision or grant the Applicant the visa they seek. 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.[27]
2. The explanations provided to the Applicant were interpreted. Based on the Applicant's responses the Court is confident they properly comprehended the scope and purpose of the hearing.
3. 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 had 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.[28]
4. Before this Court, the Applicant made submissions in support of the grounds set out in their application. Those submissions are considered below.
5. The Minister made submissions consistent with their written submissions.

THE ROLE OF THE COURT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

1. In Bhasker v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[29] his Honour Judge Fary summarised the role of the Court in judicial review proceedings:
   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.[30]
   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.[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] The critical question is whether the decision maker has exceeded the authority or power conferred by the statute.[36]
   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.[37] This is to be determined as "a matter of reasonable conjecture within the parameters set by the historical facts that have been determined".[38] It has been described as an "undemanding" standard.[39]
2. The Court as presently constituted respectfully adopts his Honour's summary of the task before it.
3. Further, disagreement with a decision, even emphatic disagreement, does not of itself give rise to jurisdictional error.[40]
4. Section 116(1)(b) of the Act empowers the Minister to cancel a visa where an individual has failed to comply with its conditions. This is a discretionary power, and there are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in its exercise.[41] Nevertheless, "the legislature is [generally] taken to intend that a discretionary power, statutorily conferred, will be exercised reasonably";[42] how reasonableness is conceptualised in a given context is to be resolved by "the true construction of the statute".[43]
5. A lack of reasonableness can encompass:

(a) "misdirecting oneself as to the operation of the statute";[44]

(b) "taking into account irrelevant considerations"; [45]

(c) the making of "a decision which lacks an evidence and intelligible justification."[46]

_ That the second respondent fell into jurisdictional error by failing to consider the compelling and compassionate grounds and sole reason why I failed to pay the tuition fee and changing education sector/level of study._*

1. When taken to this ground the Applicant explained that his father had been unable to afford the bachelor's degree for which his visa had been granted (ostensibly, the "compelling and compassionate grounds" which the Tribunal failed to consider).[47] He further alleged that during the Tribunal hearing, he was only asked questions concerning the downgrade in his level of study and not his financial circumstances.[48] These claims cannot be accepted.
2. In deciding whether or not to exercise its discretion to cancel a visa, the Tribunal was not required to have regard to any mandatory considerations.[49]
3. In any case, the Tribunal plainly had regard to the Applicant's circumstances and the reasons which precipitated the downgrade in his enrolment. Paragraphs [9], [10], [15], [17], [21], [26], [27], [33] and [34] all make mention of the Applicant's financial circumstances. The following extracts (which the Applicant was directed to at hearing) make it sufficiently clear that the Tribunal took into account these circumstances:
   1. The tribunal takes into account the applicant's good study history in his relevant course before financial hardship befell the family.

...

1. The tribunal takes into account the applicant's evidence as to the financial hardship that befell his family at the relevant time which was the reason for his failure to pay the tuition fees. The also takes into account the applicant's good study history before his enrolment was cancelled. The tribunal takes into account the applicant's evidence that his father is now financially in a position to pay for a bachelor level course. The applicant produced documentation at hearing corroborating that evidence. The applicant stated that he is not able to enrol in a bachelor level course presently because he does not have study rights attached to his bridging visa. The tribunal accepts that evidence.

1. The Applicant also asserted he was unaware of Condition 8202 and the need to undertake study at an AQF 7 level, or above.[50] The Applicant's ignorance of his visa conditions is not indicative of error on the part of the Tribunal. The Applicant's awareness of the conditions of his visa was a matter for him, and him alone.
2. The Applicant went on to claim, in relation to Ground One, that he was no longer experiencing financial difficulty due to the financial support of his brother, who is living in Canada.[51] There is no evidence this information was before the Tribunal and accordingly, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for failing to consider it. In any case, the Tribunal acknowledged that, at the time of its decision, the Applicant's parents were in the position to pay for a bachelors-level course.[52] It follows that the Applicant's capacity of the Applicant to pay for a bachelors-level course was not a fact capable of materially affecting the Tribunal's decision to cancel his visa.
3. Ground One is dismissed.

_ That the second respondent fell into jurisdictional error of law by not weighing the part of tuition fee paid to the institution and the component of undertaken studies in Australia which supported my intention as genuine student._*

1. When Ground Two was raised with the Applicant, he stated:

I completed my credit points and I provided all the documents from (2)(c) to the Tribunal and I had paid a tuition fee for first semester and I provided all these documents to the tribunal, but they didn't consider them.[53]

1. The Court took the Applicant to the following paragraphs, which demonstrate the Tribunal did consider the Applicant's financial investment in his courses of study:
   1. ... The applicant gave honest and candid evidence as to the financial outlay for the courses that he has studied to date. The applicant informed the tribunal that he has already spent $14,800 in course fees and that this would be wasted if he could not complete his automotive studies.
   2. The applicant further stated that he has to pay $4,000 more in fees to complete his automotive diploma. The tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has clearly demonstrated that he is a diligent student. The tribunal also acknowledges that financial hardship would befall the applicant if the visa were to remain cancelled....
2. The Tribunal - in noting the Applicant's diligence as a student - was not operating under the misapprehension that the Applicant had failed to achieve satisfactory course progress or attendance.
3. The Tribunal is "entitled to accept or reject or give such weight to the evidence proffered as it thinks appropriate in all the circumstances".[54] No error can be inferred from the weight the Tribunal accorded to the Applicant's financial outlay and academic history in Australia.
4. Ground Two is dismissed.

*** That the second respondent committed error of law by not evaluating the supported documentation presented before the second respondent on the day of hearing.**

1. At the hearing, the Court took the Applicant to page 57 of Exhibit R1, in which the Tribunal member noted that the Applicant wished to submit his Certificate III and IV. The Applicant confirmed these were the documents he wished to submit to the Tribunal.[55]
2. Exhibit R2 makes clear that the Applicant did not have these documents at the time of the Tribunal hearing, and that the Member did not consider it necessary to grant additional time for the Applicant to supply them. No error is disclosed in the Tribunal's approach. The Tribunal stated (emphasis added):
   1. ... He has clearly completed and done well in the various automotive studies that he has undertaken before his enrolment was cancelled. The tribunal affords these matters some minor weight in favour of not cancelling the visa.

The Tribunal accepted the Applicant's assertions that he held a Certificate III and IV at their face. The submission of these documents would not have affected the Tribunal's reasoning or ultimate decision.

1. In speaking to Ground Three, the Applicant discussed his desire to pursue diploma-level studies, for the purpose of gaining employment in India. He informed the Court that he had a friend working for Kia in Punjab, and that this friend had told him a diploma was a requisite for the job.[56] He also stated that a diploma would help him "to secure admission to a degree program in India because... they provide credit for a diploma.[57]
2. In the absence of a complete transcript,

a) it is unclear whether the Applicant raised equivalent points with the Tribunal member, but > > b) the best record of what occurred before the Tribunal is the Tribunal's decision.[58] The decision does not disclose that the Applicant raised these issues.

3. In any cases, the Tribunal acknowledged that the Applicant had claimed his course expenditure "would be wasted if he could not complete his automotive studies"[59] and, subsequently, accepted "that some hardship [would] certainly befall the applicant as a result of the cancellation".[60] Plainly, the Tribunal was aware of the Applicant's belief that, in the absence of a diploma, his Certificate's III and IV had little value. In this sense, even had the Applicant's points (summarised at [70]) been raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal's failure to enumerate these claims explicitly does not evince a failure to consider them: they were taken in their totality, and at their highest.
4. Ground Three is dismissed.

*** That the second respondent failed to provide detailed reasoning for affirming the decision of the first respondent despite of written requests which is an error of law.**

1. The Applicant was furnished with written reasons 38 days after requesting them.[61]
2. Section 368D of the Act deals with Tribunal decisions given orally. At the time of the Tribunal's decision, it provided:

368D Tribunal's decisions given orally

Written statement to be provided on request of applicant

(4) If the Tribunal makes an oral statement under paragraph (2)(a) and, within the period prescribed by regulation, the applicant makes a written request for the statement to be provided in writing, the Tribunal must:

(a) reduce the oral statement to writing; and

(b) within 14 days after the day the request is received by the Tribunal, give a copy of the written statement:

(i) to the applicant by one of the methods specified in section 379A; and

(ii) to the Secretary by one of the methods specified in section 379B.

...

Validity etc. not affected by procedural irregularities

(7) The validity of a decision on a review, and the operation of subsection (3), are not affected by:

...

(b) a failure to comply with subsection (4), (5) or (6).

1. Whilst the Act required the Tribunal to provide written reasons within 14 days (an obligation the Tribunal failed to fulfil), s 368D makes clear that the validity of the Tribunal's decision is not affected by this procedural deficiency.
2. Ground Four is dismissed.

1. After being given an opportunity to speak to the four grounds for review enumerated in his Originating Application, the Applicant was invited to raise any further issues he had with the Tribunal's decision. The Applicant requested that the Court give him one final chance to undertake his studies, so that his time would not have been wasted. [62] He further emphasised that his non-compliance with Condition 8202 was occasioned by his ignorance of his visa conditions.[63]
2. The Court is sympathetic to the Applicant's situation. It is clear, both from the Tribunal decision and the materials before this Court, that the Applicant was a diligent and committed student who would likely have completed his studies were it not for the unfortunate financial circumstances of his family.
3. Nevertheless, as was explained to the Applicant at the commencement of the hearing, it is not within the powers of the Court to grant a visa. The Court's role is to consider whether or not the Tribunal's decision is infected by error.
4. Mindful of the Court's obligations towards unrepresented litigants as outlined in MZAIB[64] at [59]-[77], [100] and [112]-[113], 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 no such error attends the Tribunal's decision.

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.

1. The Minister's submissions specified that, in the event this matter was dismissed, the Minister would seek a costs order against the Applicant in the sum of $6,100.00.
2. In deciding the question of costs, the Court is required to consider:

(a) whether it is appropriate that the Applicant should pay any costs at all, noting that the usual rule in courts in Australia is that an unsuccessful party pays the party/party costs of the successful party; and

(b) if the Court is so satisfied that the Applicant should pay costs, what the reasonable quantum is.

1. These principles were explained to the Applicant, who was then invited to comment on the figure sought by the Minister. The Applicant submitted that the amount sought be reduced in light of the Applicant's financial situation.[65]
2. 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 having regard to the scale and the extent of work undertaken as evidenced by the court file.

I certify that the preceding seventy-nine (79) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Johns.

[10] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 496.

[11] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 338, 474, 476(2)(a), 476(4)(a).

[20] EDO19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 826, [64].

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

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

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

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

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

[28] [2019] FCA 600 at [7].

[29] [2025] FedCFamC2G 620.

[30] Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

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

[32] Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

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

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

[38] MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; (2021) 273 CLR 506, [38] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ).

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

[40] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21, [40].

[41] Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1046, [33] (Mansfield J).

[42] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18, [63].

[47] 10 April Transcript, P-7 lines 3-9.

[48] 10 April Transcript, P-7 lines 40-3.

[49] Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 1046, [33] (Mansfield J).

[50] 10 April Transcript, P-7 lines 3-9.

[51] 10 April Transcript, P-8 lines 1-7.

[53] 10 April Transcript, P-8 lines 16-8.

[54] Lee v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 464, [27] (French J).

[55] 10 April Transcript, P-9 line 15 - P-10 line 1.

[56] 10 April Transcript, P-10 lines 6-24.

[57] 10 April Transcript, P-10 lines 37-43.

[58] SZVUP v Minister For Immigration & Border Protection & Anor [2015] FCCA 1287 at

[13] to [14] ci�ng Applicant NAFF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

[2004] HCA 62; (2004) 221 CLR 1 and Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022]

[62] 10 April Transcript, P-12 lines 1-4.

[63] 10 April Transcript, P-12 lines 38-42.

[64] [2015] FCA 1391.

[65] 10 April Transcript, P-12 lines 21-3.