Hossain v Minister for Home Affairs & Ors; Alif Rahman by His Litigation Guardian Emad Hossain v Minister for Home Affairs & Ors; Rahman v Minister for Home Affairs & Ors

In three related matters before the High Court of Australia, the plaintiffs sought constitutional writs and other relief. The applications concerned the refusal of Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visas for members of the same family. The Federal Court of Australia had previously refused the plaintiffs' applications for leave to appeal from decisions of the Federal Circuit Court, which had in turn dismissed applications for judicial review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decisions. The Tribunal had upheld a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' refusal of the visa applications.

The High Court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs had an arguable basis for challenging the Federal Court's decisions, particularly concerning alleged failures of process by the Tribunal, the Federal Circuit Court, or the Federal Court. The plaintiffs also contended that the Tribunal contravened section 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by failing to invite them to comment on adverse information, and sought a declaration that section 33(4B) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) was invalid due to inconsistency with Chapter III of the Constitution.

The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs' applications failed to disclose an arguable basis for relief. The Tribunal's findings that the plaintiffs did not meet the age requirement of clause 602.212(6) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and had failed to satisfy criterion 3001 of Schedule 3 due to the late lodgement of their applications were plainly correct. Consequently, the refusal of the visa applications was inevitable, meaning any alleged errors of process by the Tribunal, Federal Circuit Court, or Federal Court could not be characterised as jurisdictional errors. The Court also found no substance to the contention regarding section 359A of the Migration Act or the challenge to section 33(4B) of the Federal Court of Australia Act.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the applications pursuant to rule 25.09.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) as they did not disclose an arguable basis for the relief sought. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the Minister for Home Affairs in each of the respective matters.