CEJ22 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2025] FedCFamC2G 1662

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

CEJ22 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1662

File number(s):

MLG 1463 of 2022

Judgment of:

JUDGE BLAKE

Date of judgment:

13 October 2025

Catchwords:

MIGRATION – Judicial Review – Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa – whether application to Tribunal was lodged out of time – meaning of ‘end of day’ in section 494C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – meaning of ‘transmit’- held that application was lodged out of time – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 65, 66(1), 66(2), 66(2)(d), 412, 412(1)(b), 494B, 494B(5), 494C, 494C(5)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) rr 2.16(3), 4.31(2)

Cases cited:

Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 267 FCR 15

BMY18 v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 271 FCR 517

DFQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 64

DZAFH v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 387

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

40

Date of last submission/s:

19 August 2025

Date of hearing:

19 August 2025

Place:

Melbourne

Solicitor for the First Applicant:

Self-represented litigants

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr Sypott

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mills Oakley

Second Respondent:

Submitting appearance

ORDERS

MLG 1463 of 2022

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

CEJ22

First Applicant

CEI22

Second Applicant

CEK22 (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BLAKE
DATE OF ORDER:	13 OCTOBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application filed on 24 June 2025 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 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE BLAKE:

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘Tribunal’). On 2 June 2022, the Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to review a decision made by a delegate of the Minister (‘Minister’) on 10 December 2021. At issue was the application by the Applicants for protection visas.

2. For the reasons that follow, I have decided to dismiss the application for review.

3. The Applicants are a family unit. A cause of some confusion in the proceedings below and initially before me was the proper identity of the Applicants. It is necessary to clarify that at the outset. Before the delegate, the first applicant was the mother, and the second applicant was the father (Court Book (‘CB’) 213). Before the Tribunal, the first applicant was the mother and the second applicant was the father (CB 246), notwithstanding that it was the father who completed the Application for Review of Decision to the Tribunal (CB 240). In this Court, the father was assigned the pseudonym CEJ22 and is the First Applicant. The mother was assigned the pseudonym CEI22 and is the Second Applicant. The remaining applicants are the children. To avoid confusion, in these reasons where it is necessary to refer to the individual applicants, I will refer to them by the pseudonyms assigned to them by this Court. I will otherwise refer to them collectively as the Applicants.

   BACKGROUND

4. The Applicants are citizens of Fiji. The Applicants arrived in Australia on 23 November 2018 on Tourist (Subclass 600) visas (CB 220).

5. On 21 January 2019, the Applicants applied for Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visas (‘protection visas’) (CB 128). CEJ22 and CEI22 each raised their own claims for protection (CB 113–115, 202–203). The remaining applicants, being the children, did not raise their own claims for protection.

6. In his application for a protection visa, CEJ22 agreed to the Department of Home Affairs (‘Department’) contacting him by the email address [REDACTED]@gmail.com (‘email address 1’) (CB 32). In her application for a protection visa, CEI22 agreed to the Department contacting her by email at the email address [REDACTED]@gmail.com (‘email address 2’) (CB 11).

7. On 19 February 2021, the Department invited the Applicants to attend interviews to discuss their claims for protection. The correspondence was sent to email address 2 (CB 146).

8. In early March 2021, CEI22 communicated with the Department on two occasions. She communicated using email address 2 (CB 162 – 167).

9. The Department conducted an interview with CEI22 by video link on 11 March 2021 (CB 146).

10. On 15 March 2021 and 23 March 2021, the Applicants corresponded with the Department.  They communicated using email address 2 (CB 174 – 175).

11. On 12 May 2021, the Department wrote to CEJ22 requesting that he attend for interview on 31 May 2021. That email was sent to email address 2 (CB 184).

12. On 31 May 2021, CEJ22 attended for interview. Following the interview, the Department wrote to him and asked him to confirm by return email that his email address was [REDACTED]@gmail.com (‘email address 3’). CEJ22 responded and confirmed that email address 3 was his email address (CB 193).

13. On 1 June 2021, the Department wrote to CEJ22 using email address 3 (CB 194). On 12 June 2021, CEJ22 responded using email address 3 (CB 196).

14. On 14 June 2021, CEJ22 wrote to the Department advising of his new residential address. His correspondence emanated from email address 3 (CB 206).

15. On 10 December 2021, the Department notified the Applicants of the refusal of their application for protection visas. The correspondence from the Department was sent to email address 2 and email address 3 (CB 208, Affidavit of Andrew James Price of 5 August 2025). The letter from the Department included the following:

    Review rights

    The Department cannot consider your visa application any further. However, you are entitled to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a merits review of this decision. An application for merits review of this decision must be given to the AAT within the period of 28 calendar days, commencing on the day you are taken to have received this letter.

    As this letter was sent to you by email, you are taken to have received it at the end of the day it was transmitted.

    The time mentioned above in which you may apply to the AAT for merits review of this decision is prescribed by law and cannot be extended.

    Lodging an application for merits review

    Applications for review can be lodged online, in person, faxed or posted to any registry of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) as provided below.

    Online

    of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Australian Capital Territory Level 8 14 Moore Street Canberra City ACT 2601	New South Wales Level 6 83 Clarence Street Sydney NSW 2000	Northen Territory Applications made by residents of the Northern Territory are managed by the South Australia registry
Queensland Level 6 295 Ann Street Brisbane Qld. 4000	South Australia Level 2 1 King William Street Adelaide SA 5000	Tasmania Edward Braddon Building Commonwealth Law Courts 39-41 Davey Street Hobart Tas. 7000
Victoria Level 4 15 William Street Melbourne Vic. 3000	Western Australia Level 13 111 St Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000	Norfolk Island Supreme Court of Norfolk Island Kingston Norfolk Island 2899

Alternatively, review application forms can be lodged online through by email to [email protected], [email protected] or by fax to:

Australian Capital Territory Fax: [phone]	New South Wales Fax: [phone]	Northern Territory Fax: [phone]
Queensland Fax: [phone]	South Australia Fax: [phone]	Tasmania Fax: [phone]
Victoria Fax: [phone]	Western Australia Fax: [phone]

Make sure to include a copy of this letter and the attached decision record when lodging any application for review.

Further information about the merits review process is available from the AAT on the Tribunal website or by telephoning 1800 228 333.

If you apply for a merits review of the decision to the AAT and the Tribunal determines that you are not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations, a post-decision fee will be payable. If this fee is not paid, it may affect any future visa application made by you or members of your family.

1. On 6 January 2022, CEI22 wrote to the Department indicating that the Applicants wished to proceed with their application to the Tribunal to review the decision of the delegate. CEI22 stated ‘Please allow us to seek further advise [sic] as we prepare for further details to furnish you with our situation’.

2. On 7 January 2022, the Department wrote to CEI22. Among other things, the Department stated as follows:

   In order to lodge a review application I refer you to the instructions which are detailed on page 2 of the letter sent to you by email on 10 December 2021. To clarify, your email below is not accepted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as an application for merits review. If you wish to apply for merits review of the refusal of your protection visa you will need to follow the instructions set out in the above-mentioned letter.

   I also refer to the following text from the above-mentioned letter which states that “…An application for merits review of this decision must be given to the AAT within the period of 28 calendar days, commencing on the day you are taken to have received this letter”. I note that the letter sent to you informing you of the refusal of your protection visa was sent to you on 10 December 2021. Therefore, this means that today is the last day for you to submit an application with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. If you wish to make such an application you will need to do so by today.

   Any supporting information you wish to be considered by the Tribunal will need to be sent to the Tribunal directly.

3. On 12 January 2022, CEJ22 made application to the Tribunal to review the decision of the delegate (CB 239). CEJ22 indicated in the application that his preferred method for receiving correspondence was email and that the email address to be used was email address 2.

4. On 18 January 2022, the Tribunal wrote to CEJ22 and invited him to comment on the validity of the Applicants’ application to the Tribunal. In its correspondence, the Tribunal noted, inter alia, that it appeared that the application was not a valid application as it was not lodged within the relevant time period (CB 270). The Tribunal, inter alia, stated:

   It appears that your application is not a valid application as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit. Pursuant to r. 4.31(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, the period in which an application for review of a Part 7-reviewable decision must be given to the Tribunal is 28 days, commencing on the day the applicant is notified of the decision. In DZAFH v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 387, the Federal Circuit Court held that the prescribed period in r. 4.31 commences on, and includes, the day the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision: at [44] – [46].

   The primary decision was emailed to you on 10 December 2021 meaning that 10 December 2021 was the date on which you are taken to have been notified. In accordance with DZAFH, the last day for lodging the application for review was 6 January 2022. As the application was not received until 12 January 2022, it appears to be out of time. However, this is a matter which must be determined by a Member.

5. The correspondence above was sent to email address 2 (CB 270).

6. On 28 January 2022, CEJ22 responded to the Tribunal using email address 2 (CB 272).

7. On 7 February 2022, the Tribunal sent a further letter to CEJ22 using email address 2. The letter, inter alia, stated as follows:

   Email: [REDACTED]@gmail.com

   Please disregard the previous letter on the subject dated 18 January 2022 sent to you on 18 January 2022.

   It appears that your application is not a valid application as it was not lodged within the relevant time limit. Pursuant to r. 4.31(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994, the period in which an application for review of a Part 7-reviewable decision must be given to the Tribunal is 28 days, commencing on the day the applicant is notified of the decision. In DZAFH v Minister for Immigration [2017] FCCA 387, the Federal Circuit Court held that the prescribed period in r. 4.31 commences on, and includes, the day the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision: at [44] – [46].

   The primary decision was emailed to you on 10 December 2021 meaning that 10 December 2021 was the date on which you are taken to have been notified. In accordance with DZAFH, the last day for lodging the application for review was 6 January 2022. As the application was not received until 12 January 2022, it appears to be out of time. However, this is a matter which must be determined by a Member.

8. CEJ22 replied to the correspondence from the Tribunal set out above on 16 February 2022 and 21 February 2022 (CB 277, 281).

9. On 2 June 2022, the Tribunal determined that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter. The reasons of the Tribunal are as follows:

   1.On 12 January 2022, the applicants lodged an application with the Tribunal for the review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs made on 10 December 2021 to refuse to grant them protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

   2.For the following reasons, the Tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction to review the decision.

   3.As the applicants were not in immigration detention on the day they were notified of the decision, an application for review of the decision had to be made within 28 days, commencing on that day: reg 4.31(2) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).

   4.The material before the Tribunal indicates that the applicants were notified of the decision by letter dated 10 December 2021 and dispatched by email. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants were notified of the decision in accordance with the statutory requirements.

   5.On 7 February 2022, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicants, by way of an email sent to the first-named applicant, inviting them to comment on the validity of the review. The letter requested any comments to be provided in writing by 21 February 2022.

   6.On 16 and 22 February 2022, the applicants submitted letters explaining the reasons why the review application was lodged out of date. In summary, this was said to be due to ‘human weakness and error’ on the part of the named friend and visa agent in Fiji who had thought he had lodged the application on 7 January 2022 (the date the first-named applicant had calculated as the last date for lodgement) but must have ‘inadvertently lodged out of the AAT system thinking that he had submitted’ the application.

   7.The Tribunal has considered the submissions.

   8.The Tribunal finds that the applicants are taken to have been notified of the decision on 10 December 2021: s 494C of the Act. Therefore, the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 6 January 2022. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 12 January 2022, the application for review for was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

   Decision

   9.The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

10. The Applicants filed their application in this Court on 24 June 2022 (‘Application’). The Application was accompanied by an affidavit of CEI22 also filed 24 June 2022.  Despite orders being made for the filing of any amended application, evidence and written submissions, the Applicants did not do so and appeared before me unrepresented. I confirmed with each of CEJ22 and CEI22 that CEJ22 would speak to the Court on behalf of all of the Applicants. I therefore have had regard to the material filed by the Applicants in this proceeding and the oral submissions of CEJ22. The Minister relied on his outline of submissions filed 5 August 2025, the affidavit of Andrew James Price filed 5 August 2025 and the Court Book.

    THE APPLICATION

11. The Application contains a single ground of review. It is as follows:

    The Tribunal erroneously found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s application for review.

    Particulars

    a.On 12 January 2022, the applicants lodged an application for review of the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant them a Protection visa: Tribunal’s reasons, para [1].

    b.The Tribunal found at para [8] of its reasons that:

    The Tribunal finds that the applicant is taken to have been notified of the decision on 10 December 2021: s 494C of the Act. Therefore, the prescribed period to apply for review ended on 6 January 2022. As the application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 12 January 2022, the application for review was not made in accordance with the relevant legislation and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this matter.

    c. The purported notification of the 10 December 2021 decision of the delegate (purported notification) stated that:

    … An application for merits review of this decision must be given to the AAT within the period of 28 calendar days, commencing on the day you are taken to have received this letter.

    As this letter was sent to you by email, you are taken to have received it at the end of the day it was transmitted.

    The time mentioned above in which you may apply to the AAT for merits review of this decision is prescribed by law and cannot be extended.

    d.Section 66(2)(ii)(d) of the Act required a notification of a decision to refuse an application for a visa to state “the time in which the application for review may be made”.

    e.The purported notification failed to state, with the requisite degree of precision, the time in which the application for review could be made, because:

    i.It did not specify whether the “end of the day” on which it the notification letter was transmitted included 10 December 2021 or was the first instant of 11 December 2021 (see Tio v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCAFC 53; (2003) 126 FCR 185; Prowse v McIntyre [1961] HCA 79; (1961) 111 CLR 264); and

    ii.It did not specify whether the term “transmitted” referred to the time when the notification was sent by the delegate or the time when it was received by the applicant (see Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 228, [40]).

    f. The purported notification failed to comply with s 66(2)(d)(ii) of the Act, and the applicants were not out of time when they applied to the Tribunal.

12. CEJ22 made oral submissions to the Court. As I understood him, CEJ22 contended that:

    (a)the notification from the Department dated 10 December 2021 was not valid because it failed to specify the end day on which the notification was transmitted;

    (b)the Applicants had wanted to lodge an application for review with the Tribunal five days before the expiry of the 28-day time limit;

    (c)the Applicants in fact applied for review within the 28-day period and received a receipt for lodgement. CEJ22 told me initially that he did not know what happened to the receipt, but later told me that he thought he had given the receipt to the Minister’s lawyers;

    (d)the Applicants had tried to file an application for review with the Tribunal but were one day late;

    (e)he procured a record from the Tribunal’s website or portal indicating that an application for review that he (or his agent) had attempted to file on 7 January 2022 was ‘incomplete’;

    (f)a person in Fiji by the name of Savenaca Vakaliwaliwa had helped to lodge the ‘incomplete’ application, but he did not know why the Tribunal did not receive it; and

    (g)he ultimately filed a second application for review with the Tribunal on 12 January 2022 and was able to produce the receipt for that application.

1. The Applicants position on these issues is also illuminated in the correspondence they sent to the Tribunal about the matter. In a letter to the Tribunal dated 27 January 2022, CEJ22 stated:

   First, from reading the Review Rights condition pasted below, I concluded from the underlined sentence below that I am deemed to have received my refusal notification sent on the 10^th December 2021 at the end of the day it was transmitted; and this makes the 1^st full day of receiving the refusal notification to be on the on the 11^th December 2021. So according to my calculation, the 28 days allowed for a merits review submission would end on the 7^th January 2022.

   “Review rights: The Department cannot consider your visa application any further. However, you are entitled to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a merits review of this decision. An application for merits review of this decision must be given to the AAT within the period of 28 calendar days, commencing on the day you are taken to have received this letter. As this letter was sent to you by email, you are taken to have received it at the end of the day it was transmitted. The time mentioned above in which you may apply to the AAT for merits review of this decision is prescribed by law and cannot be extended”.

   On the 7^th of January, I requested Mr Savenaca Vakaliwaliwa, a friend of mine who is my Visa Agent in Fiji to please submit my Appeal or Merits Review to the Tribunal. He did so, and he sent me all the forms to be filled if my family wished to pay a reduced fee and also a copy of Your Cases – AAT Online Services revealing that Case Number KVMZQ6 was lodged on 7^th January 2022. (see attached).

   I believe Mr Vakaliwaliwa, inadvertently lodged out of the AAT system thinking that he had actually submitted my Appeal on 7^th January 2022 and even sent us the above-mentioned documents as confirmation. It was only after I had started inquiring with AAT about where to pay my fees and quoting the Case Number KVMZQ6 lodged on 7^th January 2021, that I was told that it was an incomplete submission; and that whoever entered the document for appeal did not submit the application!!

   I got Mr Vakaliwaliwa to re-check and he realized his mistake and even made an apology online when he got to actually submit on the 12^th January 2022; what was entered and in the system on the 7^th January 2022.

   I understand that according to the law, I have sinned. But this breaking of the law is not intentional. An attempt was made on the 7^th January 2022 to submit the Appeal and obey the law but human weakness and error crept in, causing a blunder in thinking that it was actually submitted.

2. The content of the letter above was largely replicated in a further letter CEJ22 sent to the Tribunal dated 11 February 2022, and in a subsequent letter dated 20 February 2022. Attached to these letters was what CEJ22 in his letter of 11 February 2022 describes as ‘a copy of Your Cases- AAT Online Services revealing that Case Number KVMZQ6 was lodged on the 7 January 2022’. That document records that case number ‘KVMZQ6’ purportedly lodged an ‘incomplete application’ on 7 January 2022 at 4:53pm. The record goes on to show that case number KVMZQ6 in the name of ‘KAITANI’ apparently filed an ‘Immigration’ application in the Tribunal on 12 January 2022 at 11:37pm. I accept that a complete application for review was filed with the Tribunal on 12 January 2022.

3. Section 412 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘Act’) deals with, inter alia, when applications to the Tribunal to review a Part 7 reviewable decision must be made. Subsection (1)(b) relevantly provides that the application for review must be given to the Tribunal within the prescribed period, ‘being a period ending not later than 28 days after the notification of the decision’.

4. Section 66(1) of the Act provides that when the Minister grants or refuses to grant a visa, he or she is to notify the applicant of the decision in the prescribed way. Section 66(2) sets out requirements for notification of a decision to refuse an application for a visa. Relevantly in the present matter, section 66(2)(d) provides as follows:

   (2) Notification of a decision to refuse an application for a visa must:

   …

   (d) if the applicant has a right to have the decision reviewed under Part 5 of 7 or section 500 - state:

   (i) that the decision can be reviewed; and

   (ii) the time in which the application for review may be made; and

   (iii) who can apply for the review; and

   (iv) whether the application for review can be made…

5. The notification given under section 66 must be clear: DFQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 64 at [57]-[58] (Perram J, Rares and Farrell JJ agreeing); BMY18 v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 271 FCR 517 at [30].

6. Regulation 2.16(3) of the Migrations Regulations 1994 (Cth) (‘Regulations’) sets out the way of notifying a person of a decision to grant or refuse a visa for the purposes of subsection 66(1) of the Act. It relevantly provides that the Minister must notify an applicant of a decision to refuse to grant a visa by one of the methods specified in section 494B of the Act. Section 494B(5) of the Act in turn permits notification by the Minister ‘transmitting the document by… email’. Section 494C(5) of the Act relevantly provides that if the Minister gives a document to a person by the method specified in section 494B(5) of the Act, the person is taken to have received the document ‘at the end of the day on which the document is transmitted’.

7. Having regard to the matters above, the Applicant’s complaint that the notification sent by the Department on 10 December 2021 was invalid because it did not specify whether the ‘end of the day’ on which the notification letter was transmitted included 10 December 2021 or 11 December 2021 cannot be accepted. The letter was clear. It specified the ‘time in which the application for review may be made’ as required by section 66(2)(d) of the Act. It specified that the Applicants were taken to have received the letter at the ‘end of the day’ it was transmitted. In using that phrase, the letter replicated the terms in section 494C(5) of the Act. There is no ambiguity in the phrase ‘end of the day’. The end of the day the letter was transmitted does not mean the next day. Moreover, the letter went further by explaining that the relevant time period was prescribed by law and could not be extended.

8. The Applicants’ other complaint in the Grounds of Review that the notification was defective because it did not specify ‘whether the term “transmitted” referred to the time when the notification was sent by the delegate or the time when it was received by the applicant’ also cannot succeed. In Beni v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 267 FCR 15, a Full Court (McKerracher, Reeves and Thawley JJ) made clear that the word ‘transmitted’ means ‘sending’ rather than ‘sending and receiving’. The Full Court stated at [47]:

   There can be little doubt that “dispatch” in s 494B(4) of the Act, in describing the giving of documents by prepaid post or other prepaid means, pertains to sending something. It does not address whether the document is received or not. Assumptions arise or do not arise depending on how and when the document was dispatched. It is similarly the case that “transmit” refers to sending, rather than sending and receiving. The most obvious reason for using the word “transmit”, rather than dispatch is that “transmit” is a term more commonly used in the context of electronic communications than the word “dispatch”. In contrast, it would not be common parlance to speak of transmitting a letter.

9. Two other issues arise that it is necessary to briefly deal with.

10. First, the notification of 10 December 2021 states on its face that it was sent to email address 2. To the extent that a question may arise as to whether the Department sent the notification to the last email address provided to the Department (given that CEJ22 and CEI22 had different email addresses), that question is answered by the affidavit of Mr Price and should be answered in the affirmative. The evidence before the Court reveals that notification of 10 December 2021 was sent to the email addresses provided by both CEJ22 and CEI22 being email address 3 and email address 2, respectively. No issue of the Applicants failing to receive notification on 10 December 2021 arises on the face of the material, or indeed was raised by them.

11. Second, CEJ22 referred in oral submissions to the ‘incomplete’ application that was sought to be lodged on 7 January 2022. That an incomplete application was sought to be lodged with the Tribunal on 7 January 2022 does not give rise to jurisdictional error for the reasons that follow.  First, whatever application was purportedly sought to be filed on 7 January 2022, on the Applicant’s own case, such application to the Tribunal was ‘incomplete’. As it was an incomplete application, it was never made. Second, the ‘incomplete’ application was apparently sought to be lodged on 7 January 2022. The 28-day period expired on 6 January 2022. Even if it could be said that the ‘incomplete’ application should be taken as having been lodged with the Tribunal, it was still lodged out of time and consequently could not be accepted by the Tribunal. Third, the Applicants indicate that the ‘incomplete’ application was filed by a ‘Savenaca Vakaliwaliwa’. The correspondence from CEJ22 refers to this person as ‘a friend of mine who is my Visa Agent in Fiji’. Be that as it may, there is nothing before the Court to indicate that Savenaca Vakaliwaliwa is a person with standing who is entitled to bring an application to the Tribunal on behalf of the Applicants. Fourth, the Applicants not only acknowledge that the attempted application on 7 January 2022 was ‘incomplete’, but they go so far as to say that what they describe as ‘breaking of the law’ was not ‘intentional’. They admit to a ‘blunder’. I observe there is no evidence before me that indicates a completed application for review was filed with the Tribunal prior to the expiry of the 28-day period.

12. I have otherwise reviewed the notification of 10 December 2021. The notification complied with the requirements set out in the Act.

13. Having regard to the above, the Tribunal was correct to find that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the review application filed by the Applicants. The Applicants were notified in accordance with law. Regrettably for the Applicants, the review application was filed outside the 28-day period. For all of the above reasons, the Application must be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding forty (40) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Blake.

Associate:

Dated:       13 October 2025

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES

MLG 1463 of 2022
Applicants
Fourth Applicant:	CEL22
Fifth Applicant:	CEM22