Jakkireddy v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 922
•13 June 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Jakkireddy v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 922
File number(s): MLG 2267 of 2019 Judgment of: JUDGE MANSINI Date of judgment: 13 June 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – student visa – application for review of a summary dismissal decision made by a Registrar filed outside of proscribed timeframe – where application devoid of merit, cannot succeed and is refused with costs. Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss.143, 254.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss. 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl.500.211, 500.214
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr. 13.13, 21.02, 21.03
Cases cited: AJB19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FedCFamC2G 368
BYF16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 2023
Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex Parte Marks [2000] HCA 67
Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 605
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 46 Date of hearing: 5 June 2025 Place: Melbourne The Applicant: Appearing in person Solicitor for the First Respondent: Clayton Utz Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
MLG 2267 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: VENKATA RAJASHEKHARA REDDY JAKKIREDDY
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE MANSINI
DATE OF ORDER:
13 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the First Respondent be amended in the title of the proceeding to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
2.The application for an extension of the time for filing the application for review of the Registrar’s decision of 1 April 2025 be refused.
3.In addition to order 2 of the Registrar’s orders of 1 April 2025, the Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $2,435.81.
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 Mansini
IN SUMMARY
These proceedings relate to an application for judicial review of a tribunal decision to affirm a decision to refuse a student visa.
That application was summarily dismissed by a registrar of the Court by reason of a lack of reasonable prospects of success.
The Applicant now seeks an extension of the time in which to file an application for review of the registrar’s decision and that tribunal decision be quashed.
These reasons explain why the application must be dismissed and the costs ordered.
CONTEXT
The Applicant is a citizen of India.
On 30 August 2017, the Applicant applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (the student visa application).
On 10 November 2017, a delegate of the First Respondent refused to grant the student visa application by reason of the Applicant’s failure to meet the financial capacity requirement prescribed at cl.500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) (delegate’s visa refusal decision).
In the course of determining an application for review of the delegate’s visa refusal decision, on 18 June 2019 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (as it then was) (Tribunal) invited the Applicant to attend a hearing on 3 July 2019 and requested that the Applicant provide a copy of: his current Confirmation of Enrolment (COE); documents that evidenced his past studies in Australia; and documents that either demonstrated that the Applicant had genuine access to sufficient funds to meet his costs and expenses while studying in Australia or evidence of the annual income of his parents.
On 26 June 2019, the Applicant provided a written response to the Tribunal which stated that the Applicant did not wish to attend the hearing on 3 July 2019 because he had not gained enrolment to his preferred course of study. The Applicant requested that the Tribunal make a decision “on the basis of [the] available information”. Some records of prior studies were attached.
On 27 June 2019, the Tribunal decided to affirm the delegate’s visa refusal decision and provided written reasons (Tribunal’s decision). In summary:
(a)The Tribunal considered that the evidence of fees paid for course enrolments prior to the application date and an affidavit of financial support of the Applicant’s father was not of itself sufficient to satisfy the decision maker that the Applicant had genuine access to sufficient funding for his stay in Australia. Further that, without a COE, the Tribunal was unable to determine the requisite financial capacity requirements given that assessment is dependent on establishing how long an applicant intends to study in Australia.
(b)The Tribunal applied cl.500.211 as requiring the Applicant to be enrolled in a course of study as at the time of the Tribunal’s decision and determined that, by the Applicant’s own admission to the Tribunal, this condition was not met.
On 17 July 2019, the Applicant filed the present application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The originating application was accompanied by a short affidavit of the Applicant which attached the Tribunal’s decision.
On 13 August 2019, the First Respondent filed a response. That response was amended, on 26 November 2021, by which the First Respondent sought that the application be summarily dismissed pursuant to r.13.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (Rules) with costs. The First Respondent subsequently filed submissions on 29 January 2025.
On 1 April 2025, the First Respondent’s summary dismissal application proceeded to hearing before a Judicial Registrar of the Court. Both parties attended the hearing by Microsoft Teams. The Applicant was not represented but was assisted by an interpreter and the First Respondent was represented by a solicitor advocate. On that day, the Registrar made orders dismissing the Applicant’s substantive application pursuant to r.13.13(a) of the Rules on the basis that the Applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding (registrar’s decision). The Applicant was ordered to pay the First Respondent’s costs in accordance with the scale amount for proceedings concluded at an interlocutory stage.
On 14 April 2025, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the registrar’s decision which was accepted for filing on 16 April 2025. By that application, the Applicant also sought an extension of the time for filing. It is that application with which these reasons are concerned.
On 14 May 2025, the Applicant filed a short written submission in respect of the registrar review application.
In addition to the above materials, the First Respondent filed a court book on 19 May 2023, an outline of submissions on 29 January 2025 and a further outline of submissions on 2 June 2025.
On 5 June 2025, the matter was heard before the Court as presently constituted. Both parties attended the hearing by Microsoft Teams. The Applicant was not represented and appeared with the assistance of a Telegu interpreter. The First Respondent was represented by a solicitor advocate.
SHOULD THE TIME FOR FILING THE APPLICATION BE EXTENDED?
The Applicant’s originating application for judicial review filed 17 July 2019 (substantive application) was summarily dismissed by a Judicial Registrar of this Court, exercising their delegated power pursuant to s.254 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act) on 1 April 2025.
A party to a proceeding in which a delegate has exercised powers of this Court under s.254 of the FCFCOA Act may apply to the Court for review, within the time proscribed by the rules of the Court or any further time allowed in accordance with those rules: s.256(1) of the FCFCOA Act.
The Rules provide that an application for review of a registrar’s decision must be made in the approved form and within 7 days, which time may be extended on any terms that the Court thinks fit or with consent of the parties: rr.21.02 and 21.03 of the Rules. Accordingly, an application for review of the Registrar’s Decision was to be made by 8 April 2025.
The present application for review of the registrar’s decision was not attempted to be lodged until 14 April 2025 and not accepted for filing until 16 April 2025 (registrar review application).
Accordingly, the registrar review application before the Court was filed 8 days after the expiry of the statutory timeframe meaning, absent consent, leave of the Court is required in order that the matter proceed.
As the First Respondent opposes an extension of the time for filing, I turn to the relevant considerations in deciding whether to allow the registrar review application to be made 8 days after the expiry of the statutory timeframe.
Duration of the delay
The duration of the delay is a relatively short period of 8 days. This weighs in favour of an extension of time being granted.
Explanation for the delay
By his registrar review application, the Applicant outlined that the delay in filing his application was because English is not his first language, that he required the assistance of an interpreter and that he did not have proper or timely access to interpretation support.
Further, it is acknowledged that the Applicant first attempted to lodge the registrar review application within 6 days after expiry of the statutory timeframe.
These are relevant factors weighing in favour of the Applicant’s request to extend the time for filing.
Prejudice and public interest
The First Respondent were understood to properly accept that, other than cost, there is no particular prejudice to them. This is a relevant factor but not of itself determinative: BYF16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 2023 (Beach J) at [18].
There is a public interest in ensuring that decisions of the executive are made lawfully. Relevant to this will be the merits of the substantive grounds of review, which are considered further below.
And, as has been recognised in the established authorities, there is also a public interest in the finality of administrative decisions which in my view is a strong consideration in the present case: Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex Parte Marks [2000] HCA 67 (McHugh J) at [15] –[17].
Merit of the Substantive Application
The merit of the substantive application is also a relevant factor.
The question of whether the substantive application ought to be summarily dismissed is required to be considered on a de novo basis.
By the substantive application for judicial review filed on 17 July 2019, the Applicant identified 11 grounds of review, expressed as follows:
1.Applying Judicial Review at Federal circuit court under the s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 related to federal circuit court regulations. because of I feel unfair as the way tribunal took the decision on my merit review application.
2.The Tribunal erred in finding that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection ( DOHA Now) had failed to properly consider my review application.
3.The Tribunal failed to put 'information' under Section 359 A of the Migration Act. The Tribunal noted that I am unable to gain enrolment in the course. It seems that the Tribunal must have checked this information from the Tribunal file or delegate file , because of delegate knew how I had exited from the Master's program and how I couldn't get the admission in master's program. The Tribunal failed to put that information under Section 359.
4.The Tribunal failed to assess relevant questions and failed to assess my situation whether there are any compelling grounds exist in the case for not enrolling in the course. Such no information taken in to account by tribunal according to tribunal decision which is Jurisdictional error.
5.the Tribunal made an error by not considering my "compelling reasons" for not satisfying student visa requirement; and delegate or tribunal never investigated or supported and understood my situation. Who will understand the overseas student situation in Australia. DOHA will expect student to enrol in Masters program , if I wish to enrol Masters education provider doesn't accept the admission. Who is wrong here ? somebody must be available to understand the student issues at universities. Somebody must be independent.
6.Otherwise , most of the genuine students become victim by university staff views and their personal administration . I came here to study the Masters but not to study Diploma level education.
7.There is need to examine the student issues in Australia at universities, if problem solved at universities , student won't be victim and they wont the waste the time and valuable parents hard-earned money for nothing.
8.I reckon it is good and beneficial for Australian government and economy, look at my case I came here for Postgraduation program and for small issue at university I had to exit and could not get the admission in any other university in similar course. And roaming around on the roads for nothing and forcibly joined in Diploma level education as some agents sacred me and made me join in that courses. Nothing I could learn in Diploma level course. When I go to the previous Masters education provider, they stand at same words and deny the admission.
9.There is lot to write to honourable judge and honourable Minister, I will write and submit soon.
10.I believe, it is necessary to court to keep eye on student issues. Also such issues should be taken in to appropriate Authorities attention.
11.Therefore , I request the court to accept my Judicial review application where I could have opportunity to explain more to Honourable judge. This is my last wish before I exit Australia.
(sic.)
The Applicant elaborated on the substantive grounds of judicial review in his written submissions of 14 May 2025.
Section 143 of the FCFCOA Act provides:
143 Summary judgment
(1) The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if:
(a) the first party is prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and
(b) the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding.
(2) The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if:
(a) the first party is defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and
(b) the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be:
(a) hopeless; or
(b) bound to fail;
for it to have no reasonable prospect of success.
(4) This section does not limit any powers that the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has apart from this section.
(5) This section does not apply if the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) is exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975.
Rule 13.13 of the Rules in turn provides:
13.13 Disposal by summary dismissal
The Court may order that a proceeding be stayed, or dismissed generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceeding, if the Court is satisfied that:
(a)the party prosecuting the proceeding or claim for relief has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or claim; or
(b)the proceeding or claim for relief is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c)the proceeding or claim for relief is an abuse of the process of the Court.
In considering an application for summary dismissal, the Court is concerned with whether the case raises a real or genuine dispute that might reasonably be resolved in an applicant’s favour as distinct from the identification of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision: AJB19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FedCFamC2G 368 (Judge Given) at [33] and the cases cited therein.
The onus is on the party seeking the summary dismissal to persuade the Court that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success.
Relevant to the substantive application, cl 500.211 to Schedule 2 of the Regulations provides that:
500.211
One of the following applies:
(a) the applicant is enrolled in a course of study;
(b) if the application is made in Australia—the applicant is seeking to remain in Australia because the relevant educational institution requires the applicant to do so during the marking of the applicant’s postgraduate thesis;
(c) if the applicant is a Foreign Affairs student—the applicant has the support of the Foreign Minister for the grant of the visa;
(d) if the applicant is a Defence student—the applicant has the support of the Defence Minister for the grant of the visa.
Although it was not the basis on which the delegate had disposed of the application, on de novo review before the Tribunal the Applicant was nonetheless required to demonstrate that he was enrolled in a course of study at the time of the Tribunal’s Decision in order to satisfy the primary criteria at cl.500.211(a) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.
There was no question in the present case that the Applicant was not enrolled in a course of study at the time of the Tribunal’s Decision. The Tribunal had proceeded on the Applicant’s own evidence that he was not then currently enrolled in a relevant course of study. At hearing before the Court, the Applicant continued to accept that fact. Accordingly, the Tribunal was correct to find that the Applicant was unable to meet cl.500.211 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations and affirm the delegate’s visa refusal decision of 30 August 2017, albeit on a different basis.
To the extent that the Applicant contends that the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error in respect of its obligations under s.359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in not giving the Applicant clear particulars of what it considered to be a reason for affirming a decision under review, that submission ought be rejected. By operation of s.359A(4)(a), the Tribunal was under no obligation to inform the applicant that his lack of a COE could be a reason for their ultimate decision in circumstances where the Applicant voluntarily provided that information of his own volition.
Throughout the Applicant’s grounds for review references are made to his personal circumstances and why he feels he has been treated unreasonably or unfairly. Unfortunately this does not assist the Applicant where the Tribunal made the only decision that was open for it to make on account of the Applicant’s inability to satisfy the criterion at cl 500.211. Even if there were an identification of a denial of procedural fairness, it would be an exercise in futility to remit the matter: Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 605 (Rofe J) at [28].
Resolution
That the Court’s Rules provide a short timeframe for filing applications of this nature reflects the intention that an application for review of a registrar’s decision be made promptly and without delay. Whether to extend the proscribed time for filing is at the broad discretion of the Court having regard to the particular circumstances of the case.
In weighing the relevant factors I am not minded to extended the time for filing of the registrar review application in circumstances where the application lacks merit and any remittal to the Tribunal would be futile.
For the above reasons the present application for an extension of the time for filing the registrar review application is refused. In addition to the costs ordered by the registrar, the Applicant be ordered to pay the reasonable costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $2,435.81.
I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Mansini. Associate:
Dated: 13 June 2025
0
4
4