Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1663
•10 October 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1663
File number(s): MLG 1348 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE CORBETT Date of judgment: 10 October 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application for judicial review – Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) (Subclass 187) visa Legislation: Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Sch 2, cl 187.233
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) Act 2021 (Cth) s 256(1)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.13(a), 21.02(1)
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Gen Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) Div 3.2, rr 1.15, 3.06(1), 3.08(1), 23.08(1)(a), 23.08(a)Cases cited: AHH22 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs 2023] FedCFamC2G
Allison v Murphy [2021] FCAFC 232
Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 43 Date of last submission/s: 19 September 2025 Date of hearing: 19 September 2025 Place: Melbourne Solicitor for the Applicant The applicant appeared in person, self-represented Solicitor for the Respondents Ms K Buckley (Clayton Utz) ORDERS
MLG 1348 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: RAMAJEET KAUR
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE CORBETT
DATE OF ORDER:
10 OCTOBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the second respondent is amended to ‘Administrative Review Tribunal’;
2.The time within which to commence the application for review of the Registrar’s decision made 14 August 2025 is extended to 1 September 2025;
3.The application for review filed 1 September 2025 seeking to review the Registrar’s decision made 14 August 2025 is dismissed; and
4.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application for review of the Registrar’s decision fixed in the sum of $2,000.00.
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 CORBETT
The applicant seeks to review the exercise of power by a Registrar of this Court to summarily dismiss an application for judicial review.
On 27 July 2023, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (Tribunal) made 29 June 2023 in which the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the second respondent (Minister) to refuse to grant the applicant a Regional Employer Nomination (Class RN) (Subclass 187) visa (visa).
On 14 August 2025, a Registrar of this Court made orders summarily dismissing the application for judicial review pursuant to r 13.13(a) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (2021 Rules).
On 1 September 2025, the applicant filed an application to review the decision of the Registrar pursuant to s 256(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) Act 2021 (Cth) (FCFCOA Act) and r 21.02 of the 2021 Rules.
On 1 September 2025, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Gen Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (2025 Rules) came into operation. Division 3.2 of the 2025 Rules now applies to a review of a Registrar’s exercise of power. Importantly the time within which to bring an application for review has been changed from seven days to 21 days (r 3.06(1) of the 2025 Rules).
A hearing of the application for review was listed for 19 September 2025 before this Court sitting in Melbourne. At that hearing the applicant appeared self-represented by video-link. The applicant was assisted by an interpreter fluent in the English and Punjabi languages.
Ms Buckley, solicitor appeared for the Minister.
Reference in these reasons to ‘CB’ pages are references to the Court Book that was tendered and admitted as evidence at the hearing on 19 September 2025 and marked exhibit ‘R1’.
EXTENSION OF TIME
Because the decision of the Registrar under review was made before the commencement of the 2025 Rules the time within which to bring an application for review under the 2021 Rules was seven days from the date of the Registrar’s decision. The Court had power under r 21.02(1) of the 2021 Rules to extend time on any terms that the Court thinks fit. It has the same power under r 1.15 of the 2025 Rules. In the application for review filed by the applicant on 1 September 2025, the applicant sought an extension of time. At the hearing, the applicant explained that she did not know that the 2021 Rules required an application to be filed within seven days of the Registrar’s decision. She told the Court that she spoke to a “consultant” who told her that she had 21 days to submit her application.
Given the change in the Court Rules, the candid explanation for misunderstanding the 2021 Rules, the absence of prejudice to the Minister and in the interests of the efficient disposition of the proceedings, the Court granted an extension of time at the hearing. Therefore, the hearing proceeded as a hearing de novo with the Minister bearing the burden of satisfaction that the application for judicial review should be summarily dismissed because the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or part of a proceeding (rr 3.08(1) and 23.08(1)(a) of the 2025 Rules).
HEARING DE NOVO
The solicitor for the Minister relied on an outline of written submissions dated 18 July 2025 that was prepared for the hearing before the Registrar on 14 August 2025. The primary submission was that none of the grounds of review in the application for judicial review filed 27 July 2023 disclosed a material jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in the decision record dated 29 June 2023 (Decision). Accordingly, the application for judicial review had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the claim for relief in this proceeding.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a citizen of India. The applicant applied for the visa on 21 May 2019 (CB 1-17). The nominated occupation in the application was “Restaurant Manager”. The sponsoring employer was Global Business Solution Australia Pty Ltd (CB 22).
On 3 September 2019, the Minister notified the applicant that the sponsor’s nomination application had been refused. The applicant was invited to withdraw her application for the visa (CB 22-4). The applicant did not do so.
On 9 October 2019, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant the visa because the application was not supported by an approved nomination (CB 27-33). The application did not comply with the mandatory criteria required by cl 187.233 of Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations).
On 28 October 2019, the applicant applied to the Tribunal to review the delegate’s decision (CB 35-6).
On 15 May 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide evidence of an approved sponsor within 14 days (CB 55-6). Failing which the applicant would not be entitled to appear before the Tribunal and present arguments. The applicant did not respond to this invitation.
There was no hearing before the Tribunal.
On 29 June 2023, the Tribunal affirmed in writing the decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant the visa (CB 58-62).
On 27 July 2023, the applicant applied to this Court for judicial review of the Decision. The application for judicial review was supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant on 27 July 2023 (CB 74–82). The affidavit simply annexed a copy of the Decision.
The application for judicial review contained fifteen grounds of review as follows:
1. I Ramanjeet Kaur, am the primary applicant.
2. I applied my Permanent Employer Sponsored Entry on 21 May 2019 the application for approval of a nomination was refused on 03 September 2019 because the delegate was not satisfied.
3. I applied for merit review applicant with Administrative Appeals Tribunal within 21 days.
4. I applied in Direct Entry stream, to work in the nomination position of Café or Retail Manager-ANZSCO-142111. Delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that I did not meet cl 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and I am not satisfied with the decision made by the Department and AAT.
5. On 3 Sep 2019 nomination was lodged by my employer GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTION AUSTRALIA PTY LTD being the nomination referred to in paragraph 187.233(1), was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs.
6. The grounds of the application for my case to be re-considered by Federal Circuit Court as The Department of Home Affairs made a procedural error by not correctly assessing information relevant to my circumstances.
7. On 3 September 2019 I received an email from the Department to provide the applicant with an invitation to comment on the refusal of the employer nomination within a timeframe of 28 days.
8. On 15 May 2023, the Tribunal invited to respond to a request to provide evidence of an approved business sponsor and that the information be provided by 29 May 2023.
9. The Tribunal refused my Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent) (Class RN) visa, as the tribunal was satisfied that I does not have an approved standard business sponsor, based upon the evidence before the Tribunal and Cl.187.233 is nor met and I am not satisfied with the decision made by the Department and AAT.
10. My legitimate expectation to seek review was denied by the Tribunal. AAT and Department of Home Affairs have stated that I am not genuine student due to funds clarification.
11. I believe that I wasn’t provided a fair opportunity to provide the verbal evidence to the member.
12. Tribunal misconstrued condition cl.187.233. The clauses were wrongly assessed. My genuine intentions to work were denied by the tribunal and mis constituted as non-genuine applicant of visa.
13. Member erred in affirming my application without providing extra time and without any basis in law and fact.
14. My application clearly raises an arguable case, and the decision of the tribunal is short and void and must be overlooked again.
15. Substantial justice was not provided and that's the reason I want to apply in Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
On 14 August 2025, the Registrar summarily dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of an incidental to the proceeding fixed in the sum of $4,189.38. That is the exercise of power now under review.
SUBMISSIONS
On a review application the Court is not concerned with considering the correctness of the decision made by the Registrar or “…redressing any perceived error in that decision. Rather the court hears the case again unaffected by what has gone before…” (see Allison v Murphy [2021] FCAFC 232 at [11] per Besanko, Colvin and Downes JJ).
The Minister has the burden of satisfaction that the application for judicial has no reasonable prospects of success (r 23.08(a) of the 2025 Rules). That requires the Minister to persuade the Court that the respondents are entitled to have the proceedings determined summarily and not after a full hearing or trial (see Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118 (Spencer) at [24] and [25]).
The solicitor for the Minister relied on written submissions dated 18 July 2025 in which the Minister submitted that none of the fifteen grounds of review identified in the application for judicial review dated 27 July 2023 disclosed a material jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in the Decision. Therefore, the application for judicial review had no reasonable prospects of success.
In oral submissions Ms Buckley submitted that the Tribunal made the only decision that was reasonably available to it because there was no approved sponsor and therefore the application for the visa did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of cl 187.233 of the Regulations. Further it would be futile for the Court to quash the Decision and remit it for reconsideration as the same result would ensue because there was no approved sponsor.
The applicant was then asked to explain why the Tribunal erred in making the Decision. The applicant explained that the Tribunal failed to inform her that the sponsor was not approved and that this was a mistake by the Tribunal that meant that her application was unsuccessful. The applicant submitted that had she been told that the nomination was not approved, she would have sought an alternative sponsor. The Court directed the applicant’s attention to the letter to her from the Department of Home Affairs dated 3 September 2019 (CB 22) in which she was informed that the nomination was not approved, and she was invited to withdraw her application. When the applicant did not respond to that letter the delegate refused the application for the visa as it was required to do (CB 27-33).
It was explained by the Court that following her application for review filed with the Tribunal (CB 35-6) the Tribunal wrote to her requesting that she provide further information including evidence of an approved nomination (CB 55-6). That invitation informed the applicant that if the information requested was not provided by 29 May 2023, she would lose the right to a hearing before the Tribunal.
The applicant then claimed that she had no idea that there was to be a final decision or hearing before the Tribunal, so she was unable to contact or make an appointment with her lawyer to obtain advice. It was also very expensive to do so. The applicant then claimed that she thought there would be a final hearing before a Registrar or Judge but that did not happen. The Court then invited the applicant to explain to this Court why the Tribunal made a mistake. The applicant was unable to assist the Court. The applicant was asked if there were any further documents that she wished to rely on that the Court should consider. The applicant said that there were none.
CONSIDERATION
The power to summarily dismiss an application for judicial review must be exercised cautiously (see Spencer at [24]). In AHH22 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 426 at [55]-[56] Judge Given conveniently summarised the principles to be applied as follows:
[55] The established principles relating to summary judgment can be summarised as follows, by reference to Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118 and Przybylowski v Australian Human Rights Commission(No 2) [2018] FCA 473:
(a) the moving party bears the onus of persuading the Court that the application has no reasonable prospects of succeeding;
(b) the assessment of whether a proceeding has no reasonable prospects of success necessitates the making of value judgments in the absence of a full and complete factual matrix and argument;
(c) despite the threshold for summary dismissal having been lowered, the discretion must still be exercised with caution; and
(d) the determination of a summary dismissal application does not require a mini trial based upon incomplete evidence to decide whether the proceedings are likely to succeed or fail at trial. A critical examination of the available materials to determine whether there is a real question of law or fact that should be decided at trial is required.
[56] The relevant principles make clear that in considering the Minister’s summary dismissal application, the Court is not required to determine whether the decision of the Tribunal is affected by jurisdictional error. Rather, the task is to consider whether the case raises a “real or genuine dispute” as to any material fact that might reasonably be resolved in the applicant’s favour: AJB19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FedCFamC2G 368 at [33], citing Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd (2008) 167 FCR 372 at [132] per Gordon J, Imobilari Pty Ltd v Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd [2008] FCA 1920 at [4] to [6] per Finkelstein J and J & A Vaughan Super Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Becton Property Group Ltd [2014] FCA 581 at [6] per Pagone J.
In this proceeding the applicant has identified fifteen grounds of review in the application for judicial review. Grounds one to five are simply a narrative of the steps taken by the applicant to apply for the visa. Ground six asks that the Court reconsider her application because the Department of Home Affairs made an error. The Court has no jurisdiction to review a decision of the delegate. Therefore, this ground is misconceived.
Grounds seven and eight record that the applicant received notice that the nomination by her sponsoring employer was not approved, and that the Tribunal requested evidence of an approved sponsor. Ground nine records that the Tribunal dismissed her application for review because there was no approved sponsor. The applicant says, “I am not satisfied with the Decision made by the Department and AAT”. The reason for her dissatisfaction is not explained.
Ground ten then refers to the Tribunal and Department finding that the applicant was not ‘a genuine student’. This has clearly been adopted from some form of precedent but has no relevance to the application for the visa or the Decision sought to be reviewed by the Court.
Ground eleven claims that the applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal made plain in its letter dated 15 May 2023 that, unless the applicant could provide evidence of an approved sponsor within fourteen days, there would be no hearing. the applicant did not provide the evidence requested because there was none.
Ground twelve asserts that the Tribunal misconstrued cl 187.233 by not considering the applicant’s genuine intention to work. However, this is not a requirement that the Tribunal was required to consider especially when there was no approved sponsor. In the absence of an approved sponsor, the application for the visa was required to be refused and the applicant was informed of that by the delegate. The applicant did not produce evidence of an approved sponsor and there was no error by the Tribunal in proceeding to dismiss her application for review without a hearing.
Ground thirteen says the Tribunal erred by failing to provide extra time “without any basis in law and fact”. However, the applicant did not request further time and it is unclear why further time was required as there is no evidence of any alternative sponsor, or that the nominated sponsor has approval such that the Tribunal could have made a different decision.
Grounds fourteen and fifteen assert an arguable case as the Decision was “short and void” and that there was a substantial injustice. There is no requirement that a decision of the Tribunal be of any particular length. The Decision was reduced to writing and explained that, in the absence of an approved sponsor, the applicant did not satisfy the mandatory criteria in cl 187.233 of the Regulations. If the Decision was brief, it was brief because the issue to be determined was clear, especially where there was no evidence of an approved sponsor. There was no substantial injustice, and the applicant does not have an arguable case that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in making the Decision.
The grounds of review in the application for judicial review do not disclose material jurisdictional error and the applicant was unable to identify any error by the Tribunal when invited at the hearing before this Court to do so.
This is a proceeding where summary dismissal of the application for judicial review is appropriate because the applicant has no reasonable prospect of prosecuting the proceeding. The orders of the Registrar made 14 August 2025 are affirmed and the application for review filed 1 September is dismissed.
COSTS
The solicitor for the Minister sought the Minister’s legal costs of the application for review in the sum of $2,000.00 which I find fair and reasonable. As I propose to simply dismiss the application for review dated 1 September 2025, the orders of the Registrar ordering the applicant to pay costs in the sum of $4,189.38 are also affirmed.
ORDERS
The name of the second respondent is amended to Administrative Review Tribunal.
The time within which to commence the application for review of the Registrar’s decision made 14 August 2025 is extended to 1 September 2025.
The application for review filed 1 September 2025 seeking to review the Registrar’s decision made 14 August 2025 is dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application for review of the Registrar’s decision fixed in the sum of $2,000.00.
I certify that the preceding forty-three (43) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Corbett. Associate:
Dated: 10 October 2025
0
8
4