CTS15 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2025] FedCFamC2G 1289

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

CTS15 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1289 

File number(s):

SYG 2393 of 2021

Judgment of:

JUDGE CLEARY

Date of judgment:

13 August 2025

Catchwords:

 MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing Medical Treatment visa – whether Sch 2 cl 602.215 should be applied – whether applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia – - Tribunal failed to consider relevant information - no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 359, 476

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cls 602.212, 602.215

Cases cited:

BKTS v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 729

CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 253 FCR 496

Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11

Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v Lieu (2023) 297 FCR 162

MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 at [76] and LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 98 ALJR 610

SZRUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 146

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

69

Date of hearing:

7 August 2025

Place:

Parramatta

Applicant:

In person

Solicitor for the Respondents:

Mr J. Law of Australian Government Solicitor

Table of Corrections
5 September 2025	In paragraph 60 the reference and quote to “Section 359A(1) and (3)” have been corrected to show “Section 359A (1) and (4)”
5 September 2025	In paragraph 61 the reference to “s 359A(3)(b)” have been corrected to show “s 359A(4)(b)”

ORDERS

SYG 2393 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

CTS 15

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE CLEARY
DATE OF ORDER:	13 AUGUST 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

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

2.The application is dismissed.

3.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $5,400.

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 CLEARY

INTRODUCTION

1. In this matter the applicant seeks judicial review under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 22 November 2021. The Tribunal affirmed an earlier decision of a delegate of the first respondent (delegate) not to grant the applicant a Subclass 602 Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa (medical treatment visa) under s 65 of the Act.

   FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. On 11 April 2012, the applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, arrived in Australia on a visitor visa. During her stay, she lodged an application for a protection visa, which was refused. The applicant later sought judicial and ministerial review, however, was unsuccessful and the decision of the Tribunal to refuse to grant a protection visa was affirmed.

3. On 28 November 2018, the applicant made another application for a protection visa, however this application was determined as invalid.

4. On 7 March 2019, the applicant lodged an application for a medical treatment visa on the basis that she was suffering from mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic depression, and chronic asthma. The proposed treatment would last from 9 August 2019 to 9 August 2021.

5. On 4 October 2019, the delegate of the First Respondent refused to grant the visa on the basis that they were not satisfied that the applicant satisfied cl 602.215 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations).

6. On 24 October 2019, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal.

7. On 14 October 2021, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a hearing to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal requested that the applicant appear at the hearing to provide information as it was unable to make a decision favourable to the applicant based on the available material. The Tribunal also invited the applicant to provide the Tribunal with material under s 359(2) of the Act, and to comment on or respond to information under s 359A of the Act that would form part of or the whole of the Tribunal’s reasoning to affirm the decision under review.

8. On 26 October 2021, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to request an extension of 14 days to be able to comment or respond to material under s 359(2) of the Act and to respond to or comment on information under s 359A of the Act. The applicant submitted that she required further time to make arrangements for payment of outstanding debts owed the Commonwealth stemming from costs orders imposed following failed litigation relating to her prior protection visa application. This request was considered by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal did not agree to grant an extension of time to respond due to there being nothing preventing the applicant from continuing to make arrangements prior to the hearing.

9. On 28 October 2021, the applicant provided written submissions to the Tribunal pursuant to the invitation from the Tribunal to comment or respond.

10. On 19 November 2021, the Applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

11. On 22 November 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review not to grant the applicant a medical treatment visa.

    TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

12. The Tribunal set out the relevant background, applicable law, the applicant’s claims, evidence and relevant country information.

13. The Tribunal identified the issue before it as whether the applicant satisfies clauses 602.215 and cl.602.217 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

14. The Tribunal at [28]-[33] considered the medical care the applicant was receiving, noting that the applicant was receiving treatment for mental health conditions in the form of regular counselling and medication, and also that the applicant had begun this treatment in 2013.

15. The Tribunal further noted at [37] that despite improvements in the applicant’s health, she remained unable to objectively assess her safety in Sri Lanka if she were to return. The applicant expressed the opinion that her mental health would suffer significantly if she were forced to return due to her fears of being raped or killed. The applicant asserted that remaining in Australia would be beneficial for her overall mental health and wellbeing.

16. The Tribunal noted that at the time of application for the medical treatment visa, that the applicant indicated that she would be under medical care until August 2021, however that date had passed and the applicant remained in Australia. The Tribunal raised that the applicant had overstayed her visa by 83 days and been an unlawful citizen for that period. The applicant told the Tribunal she had not known she did not have a visa at that time.

17. The Tribunal at [56] asked the applicant whether she intended to return to Sri Lanka, to which the applicant responded she will not return due to her fears of being harmed. She further stated to the Tribunal that she did not know how long she wanted the medical treatment visa for.

18. The Tribunal accepted that the reports provided by the applicant demonstrated that she had mental health conditions for which she was receiving treatment for the purpose of cl. 602.212.

19. Having accepted that the applicant was receiving treatment in accordance with cl. 602.212 requirements, the Tribunal then moved towards considering whether the applicant had genuine intentions to stay only temporarily in Australia. The relevant parts of [63] are as follows:

    … if her medical treatment ceased, or if her medical conditions resolved and no longer required treatment, would the applicant continue to remain in Australia? If that was the case, then it could not be argued that the visa applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily for medical treatment, because she would continue to be in Australia notwithstanding her claimed purpose for staying no longer being present

20. The Tribunal at [66]-[68] noted that it had considered the applicant’s migration history, including periods of unlawfulness that demonstrated a past indifference to her migration status within Australia. The Tribunal stated that the failure of the applicant to depart Australia while not holding a valid visa demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with visa requirements. The Tribunal was satisfied upon consideration of the applicant’s migration history that the applicant would remain in Australia following the expiration of the medical treatment visa if the visa was granted.

21. The Tribunal at [69] found it was not satisfied that the applicant had genuine intentions to stay temporarily in Australia. As a result, the Tribunal noted at [69] that:

    … the applicant wishes to use the medical treatment visa as a means to remain permanently in Australia as an alternative to the permanent residency that would have been provided through the grant of a protection visa.

22. As such, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl. 602.215, and that it was therefore unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant satisfied cl.602.217 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.

23. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa to the applicant a medical treatment visa.

    Judicial review application and procedural orders

24. On 22 December 2021, the applicant filed an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision dated 22 November 2021. The application contains four (4) grounds of review, both containing several particulars. They are (as written):

    Ground 1

    The Tribunal’s decision is unreasonable

    Particulars
    The applicant requested the Tribunal to extend time to respond to the letter sent to her under section 359 A of the Migration Act. The applicant is a self-represented applicant and has mental health issues which the Tribunal was well-aware of it. Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal should have exercised its discretion reasonably and should have extended the time to respond.

    Ground 2

    The Tribunal failed to consider relevant information or consideration provided to the AAT in support of her submission related her intention to stay temporarily.

    Particulars

    a.The applicant submitted that she 'substantially' complied with the Migration Regulation. The Tribunal failed to consider it.

    b.The Tribunal failed to consider her intention which she submitted in her submission.

    Ground 3

    The Tribunal failed to comply with s 359AA and/or s 359A of the Migration Act 1958 in respect of information that was to be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.

    Particulars

    a.The Tribunal noted in its decision applicant's immigration history and failed to provide it is under section 359 A or 359 AA of the Migration Act.

    Ground 4

    The Tribunal failed to consider or advise the applicant about the existence of Section 375 A certificate in the file.

25. On 21 March 2022, a Registrar of this Court made an Order for both the applicant and first respondent to file an amended application (if applicable), written submissions and any further evidence in respect to the hearing. The applicant did not file any documents in accordance with this Order. The first respondent filed their written submissions as required by the Order.

26. On 25 June 2025, the proceedings were docketed to me and set down before me for final hearing on 7 August 2025.

    Hearing on 7 August 2025

27. At the hearing of this matter on 7 August 2025, the applicant appeared unrepresented assisted by a Tamil interpreter.  Mr J Law from the Australian Government Solictor’s Office appeared for the first respondent.

28. After allowing the applicant’s affidavit in support of her application, and the Court Book to be admitted as evidence, I invited the parties to make final oral submissions. As the applicant was legally unrepresented, the Court has a duty to take appropriate steps to ensure that the applicant has sufficient information about the practice and procedure of the court, so far as is reasonably practicable for the purpose of ensuring a fair trial: SZRUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 146 at [37].

29. Applying this principle, I took the applicant through each of the four grounds of review in her application and asked her if she wanted to make any submission about them, and to tell the Court why she considered the Tribunal’s decision was wrong.

30. The applicant made brief oral submissions on grounds 1 and 2, and told the Court she did not want to say anything about ground 3 and 4.  As to ground 1 and 2,  the applicant made a general submission that the application was written by her father, that she had come to Australia in 2012, and that she was taking medication for her condition.  I asked her if she wanted to specifically address what was said in grounds 1 and 2.  She did not take up that opportunity.

31. Mr Law addressed the Court by briefly outlining the first respondent’s submission on each of the four written ground of review, which I will summarise below, where necessary.

    CONSIDERATION

32. The issue before this Court is whether the Tribunal’s decision contained a jurisdictional error; that is, a serious legal error that results in an administrative decision lacking any legal force: see Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 at [76] and LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 98 ALJR 610 at [2] – [3] (LPDT). 

33. The Court in determining this issue does not consider the merits or wisdom of the decision; nor does it remake the decision:  Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21 (Djokovic).

34. Below the Court sets out its consideration of the grounds of judicial review in this matter. For the reasons given below, none of the grounds identify the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.

    Ground 1

35. The applicant in this ground appears to be referring to an argument that the Tribunal’s “decision” regarding its s 359A request was “legally unreasonable” as was explained by the High Court in Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 (Li). 

36. As to this ground, the first respondent submitted orally at the hearing that there were three reasons why ground 1 should be rejected and why there was no legal unreasonableness.  First, the applicant provided written submissions to the Tribunal dated 28 October 2021 which contained a response to the s 359A request, so the applicant responded on time to the request in any event. Second, at paragraph [57] the Tribunal recounted that it gave the applicant an opportunity to be heard at the Tribunal hearing on the issue of the outstanding debt to the Commonwealth. Third, the Tribunal reasons at paragraphs [18] and [49] give a justification as to why the Tribunal did not grant an extension of time.

37. The test for legal unreasonableness was confirmed by the High Court in Li.  In Li at [76] the High Court held that:

    …Even where some reasons have been provided, as is the case here, it may nevertheless not be possible for a court to comprehend how the decision was arrived at.  Unreasonableness is a conclusion which may be applied to a decision which lacks an evident and intelligible justification.

38. It is well established that a finding of legal unreasonableness is not lightly made. As Mortimer CJ stated recently in Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v Lieu (2023) 297 FCR 162 (Lieu) at [81]:

    To reach a conclusion that an exercise of power is legally unreasonable involves a level of confidence on judicial review that either the outcome of the exercise of power, or the reasoning that led to that outcome (see Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437 at [44]) so departed from the underlying premises of the exercise of public power that it has resulted in the power entirely miscarrying, in effect being an abuse of power. See generally Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; (2018) 264 CLR 541 (SZVFW) at [80] (Nettle and Gordon JJ). In this context, the term “abuse” of power refers to an exercise of power other than for the purposes and within the limits conferred.

39. As to assessing whether there is legal unreasonableness in a Tribunal decision, in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11 (Stretton) at [11] Allsop CJ (as part of the majority) defined that task as follows:

    The task is not definitional but one of characterisation: the decision is to be evaluated, and a conclusion reached as to whether it has the character of being unreasonable, insufficiently lacking rational a foundation, or an evident or intelligible justification, or in being plainly unjust arbitrary capricious or lacking common sense having regard to the terms, scope and purpose of the statutory source of the power, such that it cannot be said to be within the range of possible lawful outcomes as to the exercise of that power. The descriptions of a lack of quality used above are not exhaustive or definitional, they are explanations or explications of legal unreasonableness, of going beyond the source of power.

40. In Stretton Allsop CJ held that the correct question or perspective is,

    …not whether the Court thinks the decision is reasonable, or necessary for the purpose, or not, as the case may be; rather it is whether a decision-maker could reasonably come to the conclusion. Depending upon the nature of the decision, its attendant considerations and the statute in question, the Court may or may not have a degree of familiarity and confidence in assessing how a decision-maker ought to approach the matter.

41. In determining whether an administrative decision is vitiated by legal unreasonableness, it is also essential to bear in mind that the Court’s jurisdiction is strictly supervisory, and does not involve the Court reviewing the merits or substituting its own view as to how the discretion should be exercised: see Perry J in BKTS v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 729 at [43].

42. On 14 October 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant making, amongst other things, a request to the applicant under s 359A to comment on information that would be a reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review (s 359A request). The applicant requested an extension of time on 26 October 2021 to respond to the Tribunal’s s 359A request. This request was made so that the applicant could “properly make arrangements to resolve the debts [to the Commonwealth] I am owing”.

43. The Department did not respond in writing to the applicant’s request for an extension of time, nor did it grant an extension.

44. As submitted by the first respondent, in written submissions dated and filed on 28 October 2021, the applicant addressed the s 359A request and told the Tribunal, amongst other things, she had “taken reasonable steps to repay my commonwealth debts”. These submissions were filed within the time required for a response to the s 359A request.

1. The Tribunal discussed the applicant’s request for a grant of an extension was discussed at paragraph [18] and [49] of its decision.  At [18] it said:

   On 26 October 2021 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and asked for an extension of time to provide information under s.359(2) of the Act and comment on or respond to information under s.359A of the Act. The applicant wrote that she would like 14 days to make arrangements to address the information that was raised under s.359A of the Act. The Tribunal considered this request but was not persuaded to grant an extension of time. The Tribunal’s reason for not granting the extension of time to comment on or respond to information is detailed later in this decision record.

2. And at paragraph [49] it said:

   The applicant wrote to the Tribunal and asked for an extension of 14 days to comment on or respond to this information. She claimed that she needed time to properly make arrangements for the payment of this debt and attached a copy of correspondence she sent to the department about entering into a payment plan. The Tribunal did not agree to postpone the due date for comment about this information, because there would be nothing stopping the applicant from continuing to make those arrangements prior to the Tribunal hearing.

3. The Tribunal went on in paragraph [50] it concluded:

   The applicant commented on the information that she had a debt of $13,645.00 in her submission dated 28 October 2021. She wrote that she had taken reasonable steps to pay her debt, without detailing what these steps were, but the Tribunal understands that the applicant was probably referring to the copies of correspondence she sent to the department about the debt when she applied for an extension of time to comment on the debt.

4. The evidence shows that the applicant responded to the s 359A request within the time that was required in the request. The evidence is clear the applicant not only made written submissions on, amongst other things, the issue of the Commonwealth debts she owed, which was identified as an issue in the s 359 request, but paragraph [57] of the Tribunal’s decision shows that the applicant was given an opportunity to give evidence at the hearing on the issue. At [57] the Tribunal said:

   Concerning the outstanding debt to the Commonwealth, the applicant said that she had written a letter to the department offering to pay $200 per month but has not received a reply. She told the Tribunal that if the department did not agree to this payment plan, she would pay $5,000.00 because she has that money with her. The applicant said she had not made any payments yet because she had not received a response to her payment plan request. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she had not done anything about this debt so far. She claimed that she did not know that she had this debt until the Tribunal wrote to her in October 2021 about this. The Tribunal queried the truthfulness of this, given the applicant declared in the medical treatment visa application form in 2019 that she had debts. She then said that she did not know she had to pay it. It was when she took the October 2021 letter to Sankar, he told her she needed to pay that debt.

5. Despite the Tribunal not replying in writing to the applicant’s request for an extension of time, in the last sentence of paragraph [49], the Tribunal gave what I consider was an evident and intelligible justification for its decision not to grant any extension of time in response to the applicant’s request, even though such an extension was not needed in any event, namely: that there would be nothing stopping the applicant from continuing to make those arrangements prior to the Tribunal hearing.

6. Bearing in mind the high bar for a finding of legal unreasonableness, I do not consider that the Tribunal’s decision or findings regarding the issue of the applicant commenting, or giving evidence, on the issue of her outstanding debts to the Commonwealth, as identified in the s 359A request, to have been legal unreasonable.

7. Ground 1 does not establish the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.

   Ground 2

8. In this ground, the applicant argues that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant information or consideration provided to the AAT in support of her submission related her intention to stay temporarily. In particular, it failed to consider the applicant’s claim in her written submissions dated 28 October 2021 that: (i) she 'substantially' complied with the Regulations; and (ii) her intention to stay temporarily.

9. The first respondent submits it is clear from the Tribunal’s written reasons that it did consider all the evidence and documents before it, including the two matters referred to in this ground of review.  I agree for the following reasons.

10. In paragraphs [26]-[57] the Tribunal sets out all of the applicant’s evidence including the written submissions dated 28 October 2021.

11. In paragraphs [46]-[47], the Tribunal summarised the applicant’s written submissions in respect to cl 602.215(1)(b)-(c):

    46.The applicant also provided a written submission dated 28 October 2021 where she claimed to meet the criteria for clause 602.215. She claimed to have provided significant volumes of medical information concerning her protection claims and drew the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that her medical issues had not commenced with her medical treatment visa application.

    47.In that letter she stated that there was no evidence that she had failed to comply substantially with any previous visa conditions and she asserted that she had done so. She also claimed that the medical treatment visa would be subject to conditions 8101, 8102 and 8503. She asserted that she would not breach condition 8102 because there was no evidence to suggest she would study. She wrote that if she was unable to get work rights, she would seek financial help from the Tamil community, which the Tribunal understands the applicant to mean that she would comply with condition 8101. The applicant did not directly state that she would comply with condition 8503 but wrote later in the submission that she had a 'genuine undertaking to leave the country' because she 'understood that the medical treatment visa is temporary' and that she has an 'obligation to leave at the end of the medical treatment.' She claimed, among other things, that her seeking protection should not adversely affect an assessment of her intention to stay in Australia temporarily for medical treatment, as she will not seek protection again.

12. These paragraphs demonstrate that the Tribunal considered her submissions dated 28 October 2021 comprehensively. Despite these submissions, the Tribunal found at [67]:

    …The Tribunal is satisfied that has demonstrated a past indifference to her migration obligations, and the failure of the applicant to depart Australia during periods where she was an unlawful noncitizen due to her own inaction demonstrates a willingness to ignore the requirement that any person who does not hold a visa to remain in Australia is to depart. The Tribunal is satisfied that this remains the applicant’s attitude, and that in the event that the medical treatment visa was granted and expired, the applicant would not leave Australia.

13. And at [68]:

    The Tribunal is satisfied based on the applicant’s migration history that she is either unwilling or unable to depart Australia

14. It was open on the evidence before the Tribunal to find that the applicant would not leave Australia if the visa was granted based on her past indifference to her migration obligations and to conclude that she did not have an intention to stay in Australia temporarily. These were factual findings which this Court is not permitted to review in applications under s 476 of the Act: Djokovic. Mere disagreement with Tribunal findings is not an arguable ground of jurisdictional error: CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 253 FCR 496; at [61] per McKerracher, Griffiths and Rangiah JJ.

15. Ground 2 does not establish the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.

    Ground 3

16. Section 359A(1) and (4) provides:

    (1)      Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Tribunal must:

    (a)give to the applicant, in the way that the Tribunal considers appropriate in the circumstances, clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review; and

    (b)ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the applicant understands why it is relevant to the review, and the consequences of it being relied on in affirming the decision that is under review; and

    (c)      invite the applicant to comment on or respond to it.

    …

    (4)This section does not apply to information:

    (a)that is not specifically about the applicant or another person and is just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member; or

    (b)that the applicant gave for the purpose of the application for review; or

    (ba)that the applicant gave during the process that led to the decision that is under review, other than such information that was provided orally by the applicant to the Department; or

    (c)that is non‑disclosable information.

17. In this matter the exception in s 359A(4)(b) applies.

18. The applicant provided the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal as part of its application for review: see Court Book page 96. Consequently, the applicant’s immigration history was “information” in the delegate’s decision that the applicant gave the Tribunal for the purpose of the application for review. Accordingly, it was not “information” which enlivened a duty to invite comment pursuant to s 359A(4)(b) of the Act.

19. Ground 3 does not establish the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.

    Ground 4

20. In ground 4, the applicant argues that the Tribunal failed to consider or advise the applicant about the existence of a s 375A certificate.

21. As the first respondent submits this ground is misconceived. There was no s 375A certificate issued (or in existence) in this matter.

22. Ground 4 does not establish the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.

    DISPOSITION

23. For the reasons outlined above, the applicant has not established that the Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error. Nor have I discerned any jurisdictional error from my own review of the decision, 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].

24. The application is dismissed.

    COSTS

25. The first respondent has sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in the amount of $5,400. The amount sought is below the scale amount under Item 3 in Schedule 2, Part 2, of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). I consider the amount sought is fair and reasonable given the nature of these types of matters. I will order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in the amount of $5,400.

I certify that the preceding sixty-nine (69) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Cleary.

Associate:

Dated:       13 August 2025