FGG19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicants, FGG19 and another, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The core of the dispute concerned the applicants' claims, which the Court found lacked an evidentiary basis. The matter came before Judge Egan of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The Court was required to determine whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had erred in its consideration of the applicants' claims. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether to grant an adjournment to enable the applicants to file a properly particularised application for review, particularly in light of their prior failure to comply with two Court orders requiring such a filing. A further question arose as to whether, as a matter of public policy, applicants in migration review claims should be granted an adjournment when in default of Court orders, with the Court acknowledging the existing backlog of migration review claims as a relevant consideration.

Judge Egan reasoned that the Tribunal had not erred in its assessment of the applicants' claims, finding them to be unsubstantiated by evidence. The Court also determined that an adjournment should not be granted. This decision was influenced by the applicants' repeated failure to comply with Court orders to file a properly particularised application for review. The Court considered the public policy implications of granting adjournments in such circumstances, noting the significant backlog of migration review cases, and concluded that the applicants' conduct did not warrant the exercise of discretion in their favour.

Consequently, the Amended Application for Review filed on 20 January 2021 was dismissed. The applicants were also ordered to pay the Minister's costs of and incidental to the application for review, fixed at $7,467.00.