Alka v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

Case •

[2024] FedCFamC2G 1347

•

12 December 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Alka v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1347

File number(s): MLG 3531 of 2018
Judgment of: JUDGE CORBETT
Date of judgment: 12 December 2024
Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for judicial review – Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) (Subclass 602) visa – non-appearance at scheduled hearing – whether decision to decide review and not to dismiss relevant application was reasonable – issue of materiality – application dismissed.
Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 362B(1A)(a), 362B(1A)(b), 426A(1A), 426A(1A)(a), 426A(1A)(b), 477(1)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Sch 3 criterion 3001, cls 602.212(6), 602.213
Cases cited: DNK17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 975
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541
MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392
MZAPC v Minister for Border Protection (2012) 273 CLR 506 at 524
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1091
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 70
Date of last submission/s: 30 October 2024 and 12 November 2024
Date of hearing: 30 October 2024
Place: Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicant Applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondents Mr M Plitsch
Solicitor for the Respondents Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

MLG 3531 of 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:

ALKA

Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CORBETT

DATE OF ORDER:

12 DECEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The name of the first respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs”.

2.The name of the second respondent be amended to Administrative Review Tribunal.

3.The application for judicial review filed on 22 November 2018 be dismissed.

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

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE CORBETT

  1. The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the second respondent (Tribunal) made on 1 November 2018. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) to refuse the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) (Subclass 602) visa (visa).

  2. References in these reasons to “CB” pages are references to the Court Book that was tendered and admitted as evidence at the hearing before this Court and designated exhibit “R1”.

    BACKGROUND

  3. The applicant is an Indian national and was born on 5 March 1974 (CB 10, 22). The applicant first arrived in Australia in November 2006 on a Student (Class TU) (Subclass 572) visa (CB 27).

  4. On 30 December 2009, the Student visa expired (CB 38-40).

  5. On 10 April 2017, the applicant applied for the visa (CB 10-31). Attached to the application was evidence that the applicant was receiving medical treatment for diabetes and depression (CB 24-6).

  6. On 13 April 2017, the delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa based on the applicant not satisfying criterion 3001 in Sch 3 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) which requires a valid application to be made within 28 days after the last substantive visa held by the submitting applicant. Departmental records revealed that the applicant had not held a substantive temporary visa since 30 December 2009 (CB 50). Further, the applicant was not fifty years of age at the time of submitting her application for the visa therefore could not satisfy cl 602.212(6) in Sch 2 to the Regulations (CB 45-51).

  7. On 4 May 2017, the applicant lodged an application for review to the Tribunal (CB 52-3).

  8. On 9 October 2018, the applicant was invited by the Tribunal to attend a hearing on 1 November 2018 to give evidence and present arguments relating to her application for review (CB 57-9). The invitation was sent to the applicant’s nominated email address (CB 53, 57). The invitation included the following paragraph (CB 59):

    If you do not attend the scheduled hearing, we may make a decision on the review

    without taking any further action to allow or enable you to appear before us or may

    dismiss your application for review without any further consideration of the application

    or the information before us.

  9. Attached to the invitation was a fact sheet titled ‘Information about hearings – MR Division’, notifying the applicant that non-appearance to attend the scheduled hearing would enable the Tribunal to make a decision without taking any further action (CB 60-2).

  10. On 31 October 2024, the Tribunal sent a reminder message of the scheduled hearing to the applicant’s listed mobile on the original application, however delivery of that message failed (CB 69).

  11. On 1 November 2018, the applicant did not appear at the scheduled hearing before the Tribunal (CB 67-8). The applicant did not engage with the Tribunal to provide an explanation for her non-appearance.

  12. On 1 November 2018, the Tribunal elected under s 362B(1A)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) to decide the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision to not grant the visa (CB 71-5) (Decision).

  13. On 2 November 2018, the Tribunal notified the applicant of its decision and attached written reasons dated 1 November 2024 (CB 71-5). It is from the Decision that the applicant now seeks judicial review by this Court.

    TRIBUNAL DECISION

  14. In the Decision, the Tribunal considered the criteria for the visa required by Sch 2 cls 602.212(6), 602.213 and Sch 3 criteria 3001 of the Regulations (CB 73).

  15. Pursuant to requirements under cl 602.212(6), the Tribunal considered whether the applicant, at the time of submitting her applicant was unfit to depart Australia and all of the following criteria were met. They were that the applicant: (CB 74):

    (1)is in Australia;

    (2)has turned fifty;

    (3)has applied for a permanent visa while in Australia;

    (4)appeared to have met all of the requirements for the grant of that visa;

    (5)has been refused the visa; and

    (6)is medically unfit to depart Australia due to a permanent or deteriorating disease or condition evidenced in writing by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth.

  16. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not turned fifty years of age and therefore the requirements of cl 602.212(6) were not met (CB 75 [11]).

  17. The Tribunal then considered whether the applicant satisfied the alternative criteria in cl 602.213 of the Regulations because the applicant met the criteria in Sch 3 criteria 3001. The Tribunal held that the applicant did not satisfy those criteria because the application for the visa was not lodged within 28 days of the last day on which the applicant held a substantive visa (CB 74 [14] - [15]). The applicant last held a substantive visa on 30 December 2009 and the application for the visa was lodged on 10 April 2017.

  18. Because the applicant did not satisfy the criteria in cl 602.212(6) or 602.213 the decision of the delegate was affirmed by the Tribunal (CB 75 [18]).

    PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT

  19. On 22 November 2018, pursuant to s 477(1) of the Act, the applicant filed an application for judicial review with this Court (CB 1-6). The application identified seven grounds of review as follows (verbatim):

    (1)I am a citizen for India and came to Australia on a student visa in November 2006.

    (2)On 10 April 2017, I applied for a Medical visa subclass 602. However, the Department of Home Affairs refused to grant the visa because the delegate found that I did not satisfy the requirements of subclause 602.213(5). This is because the Department of Home Affairs believed that I did not satisfied Schedule 3 Criterion 3001. The delegate found that departmental records confirmed that my last substantive visa ceased on 30 December 2009, which was more than 28 days prior to the date (10 April 2017) on which the visa application in question was made.

    (3)Thereafter, in 2017, I filed a Review Application with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Department’s decision to refuse my visa application. On 1 November 2018, unfortunately, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal also dismissed my review application, stating that as I was not 50 years old at the time of the lodgement of visa application; therefore, the requirements in cl. 602.212(6) were not met. Additionally, the member in the decision contended that the visa application was not made until 10 April 2017 it was not made within 28 days of the relevant day, and therefore the applicant did not satisfy criterion 3001.

    (4)I request that I have been diagnosed with severe form of diabetes and continuously receiving treatment from Tristar Medical Group located at 230 Cooper Street, Epping 3076. My diabetes nurse educator, Kerri Anne Arnold in her enclosed letter confirmed that I am having difficulty controlling diabetes and am under constant follow up and advising of self-management. She further confirmed that they have been trying various treatment options to improve my glycaemic control to prevent long term complications. I have attached the above letter for your consideration

    (5)Also, I am also suffering from severe form of depression and anxiety. My treating Psychologist Shireen Dass in her assessment report has confirmed that I have been diagnosed with severe form of depression, anxiety, severe insomnia, poor appetite, feelings of hopelessness, diminished sense of self-worth, fatigue, poor motivation, reduced interest in engaging in activities, social isolation as well as diminished cognitive capacity in regard to concentration, planning, organisation and memory. I also informed my treating Psychologist that sometimes I also felt suicidal thoughts. However, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal failed to consider my circumstances.

    (6)I was also victim of a family violence as my ex-husband continuing assaulted and torture me during our relationship. He treated me like a slave and I also complained against with the local police. Accordingly, my ex-husband’s violent behaviour has contributed for all my current medical issues.

    (7)I submit that I was a genuine applicant. The decision of AAT has jurisdictional error and the court must quash the AAT’ decision dated 1 November 2018 and direct it to reconsider my case.

  20. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant on 22 November 2018 (CB 8-9). The affidavit annexed a copy of the Decision and the applicant’s medical records. The affidavit states in paragraph [3] that “if the Court requires, [the applicant] [is] ready to provide more evidence” (CB 9).

  21. On 18 September 2020, a Registrar of the Court made orders for the applicant to file and serve any amended application with proper particulars, any supplementary court book and written submissions at least 28 days before the hearing of the application.

  22. On 7 December 2023, a Registrar of the Court made orders to adjourn the matter for further callover as the applicant had retained a lawyer who needed to consider the application’s prospects of success.

  23. On 24 January 2024, the applicant appeared at a callover before a Registrar self-represented and assisted by a Punjabi interpreter. A Registrar of the Court made an order adjourning the application for final hearing on a date to be fixed.

  24. The hearing of the application for judicial review was listed before this Court on 30 October 2024. The applicant did not file any documents in accordance with the orders of the Registrar made on 18 September 2020.

  25. On 30 October 2024, there was a hearing before this Court. The applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an accredited interpreter fluent in the English and Punjabi languages. Mr Plitsch, solicitor, appeared for the Minister.

  26. The Court confirmed that the applicant had received the Court Book and outline of submissions filed on behalf of the Minister. The Court then directed the applicant to the Court Book to confirm that the applicant understood the evidence in this proceeding. The Court directed the applicant to the Decision dated 1 November 2024 and explained that the applicant must demonstrate to the Court that the Decision was wrong and why it was wrong.

  27. The Court also explained that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal’s decision or grant the visa. Rather, the role of the Court is restricted to determining if the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at the Decision. The material error must be a jurisdictional error that meant the Tribunal must reconsider the application for review in accordance with law (see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 (Wu Shan Liang)).

  28. Noting that the applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave the applicant an opportunity to elaborate on, and further articulate, her grounds of review and to inform the Court of the basis on which the Tribunal made any jurisdictional error.

    APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

  29. The applicant submitted that she was the victim of psychological, physical and sexual abuse perpetrated by her ex-husband.

  30. The Court explained that the personal circumstances of the applicant have been understood and read in the Court Book. The Court clarified that the visa application regarded medical treatment, specifically depression and diabetes and explained that the original application was dismissed by the Tribunal due to non-appearance by the applicant at the Tribunal hearing on 1 November 2018.

  31. The applicant was asked why she failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. The applicant submitted that she became unwell and did not know how to inform the Tribunal. The applicant submitted that the “decision was wrong and not in [her] favour”. The applicant said she was alone and had no support. Her father died and her mother lives in India and was elderly and helpless.

  32. The applicant was asked whether she had applied for a permanent residency visa at the time of the Decision to which she responded that she had not. She informed the Court that her ex-husband purposely physically abused her the morning before her English Language test (IELTS) so she was unable to pass and therefore could not apply for a permanent residency visa.

  33. The Court asked the applicant if there was anything else about the Decision that she believed was wrong. The applicant replied that the Tribunal failed to consider her circumstances regarding the abuse she suffered and that she was unsatisfied with the Decision as it was not in her favour. She informed the Court that she explained the prior abuse to the Tribunal and requested that the Tribunal give her application another chance and asked for a Student visa and an opportunity to take another IELTS exam. The applicant said that “they did not hear me out”. The applicant then repeated that her ex-husband had abused her and her mother and asked for the Court to please help her.

    MINISTER’S SUBMISSIONS

  34. Mr Plitsch relied on the Minister’s outline of submissions filed 21 October 2024 and list of authorities filed 29 October 2024. It was submitted that the applicant had not articulated or identified any jurisdictional error in the Decision.

  35. The Court asked Mr Plitsch to address the recent decision of Horan J in DNK17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 975 (DNK17) which was referred to in the Minister’s outline of submissions.

  36. In DNK17, Justice Horan found that a decision of the Tribunal to make a decision on a review under s 426A(1A)(a) (which is the same terms as s 362B(1A)(a)) of the Act was unreasonable, and that the prudent course for the Tribunal when faced with non-appearance by an applicant was to dismiss the application under s 426(1A)(b) (the equivalent of s 362B(1A)(b)) of the Act which would allow the applicant to apply for reinstatement.

  37. The Minister submitted that there were two crucial differences between the present case and the case of DNK17.

  38. The first crucial difference submitted was that the applicant in the present case had not engaged in the review process whatsoever compared to the applicant in DNK17. The applicant in DNK17 engaged extensively with the Tribunal including seeking two adjournments before the review was decided. Upon those facts, Justice Horan held that it would have been reasonable for the Tribunal to have expected that the applicant would initiate an application for reinstatement upon dismissal of the application (DNK17 at [107]). In the present case, the Minister submitted that the applicant had not engaged with the Tribunal about her review, and this was considered by the Tribunal when exercising the discretion to make a decision without a hearing rather than to simply dismiss (CB 73 [6]).

  39. The second distinguishing feature was that the Tribunal in DNK17 made findings as to the credibility and reliability of the applicant’s evidence in the absence of the applicant. The Tribunal in that case rejected the applicant’s claim for protection on the merits. It was not a case where the Tribunal accepted the applicant’s assertions or evidence but was unable to satisfy the protection obligations (DNK17 at [107]).

  40. Further, in this case the Tribunal did give “intelligible justification” for moving to decide rather than dismiss and explained why it was electing to make a decision on the review under s 362B(1A)(a) (CB 73 [6]). The Tribunal considered the eligibility of the applicant for the visa and found that the applicant did not and could not satisfy the criteria in cls 602.212(6) and 602.213 and criteria 3001 of the Regulations. Therefore, this was a case where the Tribunal acted reasonably and rationally in explaining and giving reasons for exercising the power to decide under s 326B(1A)(a) of the Act.

  41. The Minister also relied on the decision of the High Court in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541 at [69] per Gaegler J (SZVFW). It was submitted that if the statutory procedure has been followed, which it was submitted had been followed by the Tribunal in this case, then it would be ordinarily reasonable in the circumstances for the Tribunal to make a decision on the merits under s 362B(1A)(a) of the Act.

  42. The Minister submitted that, in the present case, when the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal was faced with two procedural choices to either make a decision on review, or to dismiss the application (per s 362B(1A) of the Act). Whether either decision is unreasonable is “fact-sensitive”. The decision in DNK17 does not stand for the proposition that it will always be unreasonable for a decision-maker exercising power under ss 362B(1A) or 426A(1A) of the Act to make a decision on the review. The power to make a decision remains open and available in appropriate cases and this was an appropriate case.

  43. It was submitted that if the applicant had been given the opportunity to reinstate and there was a hearing the applicant would not meet the requirements of the visa. This is because the applicant had not turned fifty and did not lodge the application for the visa within 28 days after the last substantive visa held. On this basis alone, the decision to determine the case on the merits had an intelligible justification and the Tribunal’s power to proceed under s 362(1A)(a) of the Act was not unreasonable.

  1. The Minister also submitted that in DNK17, Justice Horan observed that the Tribunal has a statutory obligation to act efficiently. Section 362B(1A)(b) of the Act is consistent with that obligation and dismissal rather than making a decision on the review advances the interests of efficiency (DNK17 at [97]). In this case the interests of efficiency were best served by making a decision on the review under s 362B(1A)(a) rather than dismissing for non-appearance.

  2. The Court queried whether the Decision would be materially different had the Tribunal dismissed, then reinstated and there was a hearing. Mr Plitsch accepted the Court’s invitation to provide further written submissions to address the issue of materiality. The Court provided the Minister with an opportunity to file further written submissions by 13 November 2024 and made orders to that effect on 30 October 2024.

  3. In reply to the Minister’s submissions, the applicant reiterated the psychological, physical and sexual abuse perpetrated on her by her ex-husband and pleaded for the Court’s assistance.

    MINISTER’S SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSIONS

  4. On 12 November 2024, the Minister filed further written submissions.

  5. In those submissions the Minister emphasised that the primary submission was that the Tribunal’s Decision to proceed under s 362B(1A)(a) was not unreasonable.

  6. The Minister submitted that it was not a controversial fact that the applicant would have to meet the visa requirements in order to be granted the visa. The Decision would not have realistically changed if the Tribunal had proceeded under s 362B(1A)(b) of the Act. Therefore proceeding under s 362B(1A)(a) did not give rise to jurisdictional error. It was submitted that it is inherent in a finding that a decision is unreasonable that another decision-maker would reach a different result. In the present case the decision was not unreasonable because no other result was open to the Tribunal even if the Tribunal proceeded under s 362B(1A)(b). If the review was reinstated and there was a hearing, the Tribunal would be bound to affirm the delegate’s decision in any event. Therefore, the outcome would not have been materially different.

    CONSIDERATION

  7. The grounds of review identified in the application for judicial review filed 22 November 2018 do not disclose jurisdictional error.

  8. Grounds one, two and three are simply a narrative of the delegate’s decision and the proceedings before the Tribunal. They are not grounds that identify jurisdictional error in the Decision.

  9. Ground four identifies the applicant’s need for medical treatment but does not disclose any basis to grant her the visa or any failure by the Tribunal to consider a material fact or claim.

  10. Ground five contains an allegation that the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s illness and mental health. The Tribunal did not consider those circumstances because the primary criteria for granting the visa under cls 602.212 and 602.213 and Sch 3 criteria 3001 were not met. The Tribunal was not required to consider the severity of the applicant’s illness or whether her illness was genuine. This was because the applicant had not reached 50 years of age and had not applied for the visa withing 28 days of the day on which the applicant’s last substantive visa ceased which was 30 December 2009.

  11. Ground six was also not relevant to the Decision. The applicant’s history of domestic violence may have partially explained her failure to appear at the Tribunal hearing but was not a relevant fact in determining if the applicant qualified for a visa under subclass 602 for Medical Treatment. The Court does not doubt or question the applicant’s trauma but when assessing the Decision for jurisdictional error the history of violence does not undermine the reasoning of the Tribunal which was properly focused on the primary criteria required by the Regulations.

  12. Ground seven, there is no doubt that the applicant is genuine in her application for the visa and is suffering from diagnosed illness. However, ground seven does not disclose jurisdictional error. At best it is an expression of disagreement with the outcome of the review. This ground does not identify any failure by the Tribunal to discharge the statutory task of reviewing the delegate’s decision or a recognised reason to remit the application to the Tribunal to be determined according to law.

  13. The burden of proof is with the applicant to establish jurisdictional error (see MZAPC v Minister for Border Protection (2012) 273 CLR 506 at 524 [39]). The applicant has not discharged that onus in the grounds of review or by any other means. The application for judicial review must be dismissed.

    DNK17

  14. Although not identified by the applicant as a potential error by the Tribunal, the Minister correctly identified that the Decision may be unreasonable for the reasons identified by Horan J in DNK17.

  15. In DNK17, Horan J held that a decision of the Tribunal to exercise the power to make a decision without allowing the applicant to appear under s 426A(1A)(a) was unreasonable. His Honour held at [107], that the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing the adjournment request of the applicant and making a decision on the review did not provide an “intelligible basis” for deciding not to exercise the power to dismiss the application under s 426A(1A)(b) of the Act.

  16. His Honour considered numerous cases in this Court and on appeal in relation to non-appearance decisions by the Tribunal. After considering those cases his Honour concluded:

    [99] Nothing in the foregoing discussion is intended to constrain the options available to the Tribunal in the event that a review applicant fails to appear at a scheduled hearing. It remains within the area of the Tribunal’s decisional freedom to consider which of the available options is appropriate in the particular circumstances of each case - whether to grant an adjournment and reschedule the hearing, to make a decision on the review, or to dismiss the application. However, the decision by the Tribunal must be within the bounds of legal reasonableness, and must have an evident and intelligible justification.

  17. In the present case, the Tribunal did explain the reasons for making a decision on the review at paragraph [6] of the Decision (CB 93). The Tribunal explained that due to the lack of engagement by the applicant with the Tribunal it was appropriate to proceed to make a decision on the review on the evidence available to the Tribunal. This was not a case like DNK17 where there had been engagement by the applicant with the processes of the Tribunal, nor was it a case where the Tribunal lacked sufficient detail to establish the claims made by the review applicant, or where there was an insufficiency of the material provided in support of the application. In this instance the applicant did not meet the strict criteria required by the Regulations and could not have done so even if there had been a hearing.

  18. In Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1091, Judge Symons considered the application of DNK17 to the facts in that case. Her Honour held at [51]:

    …Despite finding that the Tribunal had acted unreasonably in the exercise of its discretion to proceed under s 426A(1A)(a), Horan J acknowledged that it remained within the area of the Tribunal’s decisional freedom to consider which of the available options is appropriate to the particular circumstances of each case, provided that the decision made has an evident and intelligible justification (DNK17 at [99]). In assessing the quality of the decision, the focus remains squarely on the reasons in fact given.

  19. In this case, the Tribunal explained that because there was no response to the letter of invitation, the applicant did not attend the hearing and had not contacted the Tribunal to explain her non-attendance, or sought to engage further in the review process (including through the provision of further submissions since the invitation) it was appropriate in the circumstances to make a decision on the review on the evidence available. The Tribunal then considered the statutory requirements that were necessary to grant a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment visa and found that the applicant did not satisfy at least two of those criteria. That was a reasonable and logical decision with intelligible justification.

  20. In the circumstances of this case the Decision was not legally unreasonable for the reasons identified in DNK17. The application for judicial review filed 22 November 2018 is dismissed.

  21. The Court has also scrutinised the application for judicial review, the materials before the Tribunal and the Decision to identify any other jurisdictional error, noting the Court’s obligations as outlined in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392 at [58], [77], [100], [112], [113] and [114]. No other jurisdictional error is apparent.

    OTHER MATTERS

  22. The solicitor for the Minister sought an order that the name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

  23. As a consequence of the passage of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No 1) Act 2024 (Cth), the name of the second respondent is to be amended to the Administrative Review Tribunal.

  24. I will hear the parties on the question and quantum of costs.

    ORDERS

  25. The name of the first respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs”.

  26. The name of the second respondent be amended to Administrative Review Tribunal.

  27. The application for judicial review filed on 22 November 2018 be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding seventy (70) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Corbett.

Associate:

Dated:       12 December 2024

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0