Mann v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
[2023] FedCFamC2G 570
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Mann v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 570
File number(s): MLG 1000 of 2018 Judgment of: JUDGE LUCEV Date of judgment: 30 June 2023 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Judicial review – Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions – decision to dismiss partner visa application – where no appearance before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where no application to reinstate dismissed partner visa application – where Administrative Appeals Tribunal confirmed earlier Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision – where no relief sought by way of constitutional writs of prohibition and mandamus or injunctive relief against an officer of the Commonwealth – where no jurisdictional error alleged Legislation: Constitution s 75
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 360, 360A, 362B, 362C, 379A, 474, 476
Cases cited: AFP21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1322
AYT16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 2733
AYT16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 252
Chen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 413
FRA18 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 2287
Khatri v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2018] FCA 1310
Ludgero v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1060; (2021) 358 FLR 215
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh and Another [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437; (2014) 308 ALR 280; (2014) 139 ALD 50
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW and Others [2018] HCA 30; (2018) 264 CLR 541; (2018) 92 ALJR 713; (2018) 75 AAR 434; (2018) 357 ALR 408; (2018) 163 ALD 1
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li and Another [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 249 CLR 332; (2013) 87 ALJR 618; (2013) 297 ALR 225; (2013) 138 ALD 181
Mokhlis v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] HCA 30; (2020) 94 ALJR 843; (2020) 382 ALR 1
MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392; (2015) 238 FCR 158
MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; (2021) 95 ALJR 441; (2021) 390 ALR 590
Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia &Ors [2010] HCA 41; (2010) 243 CLR 319; (2010) 85 ALJR 133; (2010) 272 ALR 14; (2010) 123 ALD 244
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476; (2003) 77 ALJR 454; (2003) 195 ALR 24; (2003) 72 ALD 1
Rajmohan v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1556
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323; (1978) 1 ALD 383
WZAQB v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2012] FMCA 688
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 27 Date of last submission/s: 23 June 2023 Date of hearing: 23 June 2023 Place: Perth Counsel for the Applicant: In person via CISCO Webex Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms S Roberts via CISCO Webex Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mills Oakley Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
MLG 1000 of 2018 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: HARDEEP SINGH MANN
ApplicantAND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First RespondentADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
order made by:
JUDGE LUCEV
DATE OF ORDER:
23 JUNE 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The originating application filed on 17 April 2018 be dismissed.
2.Reasons for Judgment in relation to Order 1 be published from Chambers at a later date.
3.The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in the sum of $5,400 by 23 July 2023.
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 LUCEV
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is an application for judicial review (“Judicial Review Application”) filed on 17 April 2018 by the applicant, Hardeep Singh Mann (“Mr Mann”), pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“Migration Act”). The Judicial Review Application seeks review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“Second Tribunal Decision” and “Tribunal” respectively) made on 21 March 2018 which confirmed an earlier decision made on 1 March 2018 (“First Tribunal Decision”) to dismiss Mr Mann’s review application pursuant to s 362B(1A)(b) of the Migration Act after Mr Mann failed to attend his scheduled hearing before the Tribunal.
At hearing on 23 June 2023 the Court made the following orders (“Court’s Orders”):
1. The originating application filed on 17 April 2018 be dismissed.
2. Reasons for Judgment in relation to Order 1 be published from Chambers at a later date.
3. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs in the sum of $5,400 by 23 July 2023.
These Reasons for Judgment are the Reasons for Judgment referred to in order 2 of the Court’s Orders.
At hearing the Court Book (“CB”) was marked as Exhibit 1 in the proceedings. The Second Tribunal Decision appears at CB 299-300.
BACKGROUND
The background to this matter is as follows:
(a)Mr Mann is a citizen of India and first arrived in Australia on 3 July 2008 as the holder of a subclass 572 student visa which ceased on 18 August 2010: CB 236;
(b)on 4 March 2015 Mr Mann applied for a subclass 820 partner visa (“Partner Visa”): CB 1-21;
(c)on 15 July 2016 a delegate of the first respondent (“Delegate”), now the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (“Minister”) refused to grant Mr Mann the Partner Visa (“Delegate’s Decision”): CB 236-240;
(d)on 2 August 2018 Mr Mann applied to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate’s Decision (“Review Application”): CB 264-265;
(e)on 11 April 2017 the Tribunal invited Mr Mann to attend a hearing scheduled for 17 May 2017 (“Tribunal Hearing): CB 276-277. The Tribunal Hearing was later rescheduled to 1 March 2018 at 10.00am (“Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing”): CB 286-288, at Mr Mann’s request: CB 282;
(f)at 11.00am on 28 February 2018 the Tribunal sent Mr Mann an SMS to his mobile telephone reminding him of the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing on 1 March 2018, and that he should check the hearing invitation to confirm details: CB 301;
(g)Mr Mann did not appear at the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing: CB 289, and in the First Tribunal Decision the Tribunal dismissed the Review Application because of that non-appearance: CB 294;
(h)in accordance with s 362C of the Migration Act the Tribunal wrote to Mr Mann:
(i)notifying him of the First Tribunal Decision: CB 291-293;
(ii)advising him of his right to apply for reinstatement of the Review Application within 14 days: CB 291-293; and
(iii)annexing to the notification an information sheet which informed Mr Mann that if he did not apply for reinstatement of the Review Application within the 14 day period, the Tribunal would be required to confirm the First Tribunal Decision: CB 295-296; and
(i)Mr Mann did not apply for re-instatement of the Review Application: CB 300 at [4]; Transcript, p 3.
SECOND TRIBUNAL DECISION
In the Second Tribunal Decision, dated 21 March 2018, the Tribunal:
(a)set out the background to the Review Application: CB 300 at [1];
(b)noted that on 1 March 2018 the Tribunal made the First Tribunal Decision to dismiss Mr Mann’s application for a Partner Visa under s 362B(1A)(b) of the Migration Act as Mr Mann did not appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments at the Re-scheduled Hearing: CB 300 at [2];
(c)noted that Mr Mann was notified of the First Tribunal Decision and the reasons for the First Tribunal Decision in accordance with s 362C(5) of the Migration Act, and was advised as to how to seek reinstatement of the Review Application, if he wished to do so, and that the First Tribunal Decision would be confirmed if he did not apply for reinstatement of the Review Application within 14 days: CB 300 at [3];
(d)noted that Mr Mann did not apply for reinstatement of the Review Application within the 14 day period: CB 300 at [4]; and
(e)confirmed the First Tribunal Decision to dismiss the Review Application: CB 300 at [5].
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION
Litigation history
Over the last five to six years delays in the hearing of judicial review migration proceedings in the Melbourne Registry of the Court have become notorious: see the observations in AFP21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1322 at [25] per Chief Judge Alstergren and Rajmohan v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1556 at [7]-[8] per Judge Lucev. Given that the Judicial Review Application has taken more than five years to come to final hearing it is necessary to briefly explain its litigation history, which is as follows:
(a)the Judicial Review Application was filed in the Melbourne Registry of the Court (then the Federal Circuit Court) on 17 April 2018, and was accompanied by Mr Mann’s affidavit sworn the same day (“Mr Mann’s Affidavit”) in which he repeated the single ground appearing in the Judicial Review Application, and annexed to which was a copy of the Second Tribunal Decision and notification thereof from the Tribunal;
(b)on 15 May 2018 the Minister filed a Response;
(c)almost a year later, on 1 May 2019, the Judicial Review Application was listed for a first directions hearing before a Registrar in the Melbourne Registry of the Court, at which orders were made for:
(i)the filing of submissions by both parties; and
(ii)the Judicial Review Application to be listed before Judge Kirton on a date to be advised;
(d)for almost four years nothing happened, until in early April 2023 the Judicial Review Application was re-docketed to the now presiding Judge in the Perth Registry of the Court, and a directions hearing was then listed for 12 April 2023;
(e)on 12 April 2023 the now presiding Judge made orders (slightly amended on 18 April 2023) (“April 2023 Orders”), including the following:
(i)Mr Mann file and serve any amended originating application, further affidavits, and an outline of submissions by 19 May 2023;
(ii)the Minister file and serve any amended response, affidavits in reply, and an outline of submissions by 9 June 2023; and
(iii)the Judicial Review Application be listed for final hearing on 23 June 2023 before the now presiding Judge;
(f)Mr Mann filed no amended originating application, further affidavits, or an outline of submissions by 19 May 2023, or at all;
(g)the Minister filed an outline of submissions on 23 May 2023; and
(h)the final hearing was held on 23 June 2023, and the Court made an order dismissing the Judicial Review Application.
Final orders sought and grounds
In the Judicial Review Application:
(a)the final orders sought are limited to an “order that the decision of the tribunal … be quashed”; and
(b)the grounds of application contain a single ground, as follows (reproduced unaltered):
The tribunal did not consider my request to provide some extra time. As I have submitted most of my documents. At the time of application lodgement I have sufficient documents to support my application, if tribunal would give me a chance my visa should be granted. that why I am not happy with tribunal decision.
Response
In the response the Minister pleaded that:
1.The applicant has failed to properly invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as the application does not seek a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth.
2.The application for judicial review does not contain any proper grounds of review.
3.The application for judicial review fails to establish any jurisdictional error in the decision of the second respondent dated 21 March 2018.
4.The application fails to raise an arguable case for the relief claimed. Accordingly, it should be listed for a show cause hearing pursuant to rule 44.12 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
5.The first respondent seeks an order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in a fixed amount.
SUBMISSIONS
Mr Mann’s Submissions
Mr Mann did not file written submissions pursuant to the April 2023 Orders.
At hearing Mr Mann (at Transcript, pp 2-4):
(a)in response to being asked to explain what error he considered the Tribunal had made, said that there was “nothing about the [T]ribunal’s decision”;
(b)said that his wife had not agreed to undergo a DNA test requested by the Department of Home Affairs, and because she did not want to do that test, she said she did not want to attend the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing, and for that reason Mr Mann did not attend;
(c)confirmed that:
(i)the Tribunal had invited him to the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing;
(ii)the Tribunal had dismissed the Review Application for non-appearance by him, and had written to him indicating that he could apply for re-instatement of the Review Application within 14 days;
(iii)he had not applied for re-instatement of the Review Application; and
(iv)on 21 March 2018, after he had rung the Tribunal, the Tribunal published the Second Tribunal Decision;
(d)said again that the Tribunal did nothing wrong;
(e)said that he had some family issues at the time, and that his son was sick and that there was a letter from the hospital, but because his wife did not want to go to the Tribunal, he did not attend;
(f)that he was still ready to the do the DNA test if the Court wanted him to do so (at which point the Court explained that it was not its function to do so); and
(g)confirmed that he did not say that there was any error or mistake in the Second Tribunal Decision.
Minister’s Submissions
In written, and oral (at Transcript pp 4-7), submissions the Minister submitted that:
(a)the jurisdiction of the Court had not been properly invoked as Mr Mann had not sought a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction against the Tribunal;
(b)there was nothing to indicate that Mr Mann had sought additional time to provide documents to the Tribunal;
(c)under s 362B(1E) of the Migration Act the Tribunal, in the Second Tribunal Decision, had to confirm the First Tribunal Decision as Mr Mann had failed to apply for reinstatement within the statutory 14-day period, and the Tribunal had no discretion to extend that timeframe; and
(d)no error was apparent in the First Tribunal Decision, and the First Tribunal Decision had a sound and reasonable rationale based on Mr Mann’s non-appearance at the Tribunal Hearing and the relevant statutory provision: Migration Act, s 362B(1A)(b).
CONSIDERATION
Jurisdictional error
For present purposes it suffices to observe that this Court may set aside the Second Tribunal Decision upon judicial review if it is affected by material jurisdictional error: Migration Act, ss 474 and 476; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476; (2003) 77 ALJR 454; (2003) 195 ALR 24; (2003) 72 ALD 1 (“Plaintiff S157/2002”); MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; (2021) 95 ALJR 441; (2021) 390 ALR 590 at [2] per Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ.
Relief sought
The only order for relief sought in the Judicial Review Application is for a writ of certiorari for the Second Tribunal Decision to be quashed. In the Minister’s response (filed more than five years before the hearing) the Minister asserted that the Court’s jurisdiction had not been properly invoked under s 476(1) of the Migration Act because the Judicial Review Application does not seek a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth.
Section 476(1) of the Migration Act provides that:
Subject to this section, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court has under paragraph 75(v) of the Constitution.
Section 75(v) of the Constitution provides that:
In all matters:
…
(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
A writ of certiorari is a remedy ancillary to the constitutional writs of mandamus and prohibition, and cannot be sought or granted as a sole remedy in respect of alleged jurisdictional error under s 476(1) of the Migration Act: Plaintiff S157/2002 at [80]-[81] and [83] per Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ, although it may be, and almost invariably is, granted as an ancillary remedy to give effect to a constitutional writ of prohibition in migration judicial review proceedings in this Court: Plaintiff S157/2002 at [80]-[81] and [83] per Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ; but might also potentially, if or where appropriate, be ordered as a sole remedy where constitutional writs of mandamus and prohibition have been sought but not granted: Mokhlis v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] HCA 30; (2020) 94 ALJR 843; (2020) 382 ALR 1 at [14] per Edelman J; FRA18 v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 2287 at [15] per Judge Driver. The same rationale applies where an applicant seeks relief by way of a declaration, but fails to seek relief by way of an injunction: Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2010] HCA 41; (2010) 243 CLR 319; (2010) 85 ALJR 133; (2010) 272 ALR 14; (2010) 123 ALD 244 at [8], [50]-[52] and [99]-[103] per French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ; WZAQB v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2012] FMCA 688 at [28]-[33] per Lucev FM.
Mr Mann had an opportunity to amend the relief sought in the Judicial Review Application to include relief by way of the constitutional writs of mandamus or prohibition by reason of the April 2023 Orders which provided him with the opportunity to file an amended Judicial Review Application. Mr Mann did not take up that opportunity. Mr Mann has therefore not sought relief by way of the constitutional writs of mandamus or prohibition as provided for by s 75(v) of the Constitution, and he has therefore failed to properly invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under s 476(1) of the Migration Act. It follows, therefore, that the Judicial Review Application is incompetent, and must be dismissed.
Although the finding in the previous paragraph that the Judicial Review Application is incompetent, and must be dismissed, is sufficient to dispose of this matter, even if the Judicial Review Application were taken to include relief sought by way of the constitutional writs of mandamus or prohibition it would still fail for the reasons set out hereunder.
Ground 1
Additional documents
There is nothing in the evidence before the Court (the CB and Mr Mann’s Affidavit) to indicate that Mr Mann sought additional time to provide documents to the Tribunal (including documents relation to DNA testing which the Tribunal requested before the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing: CB 287). And whilst there were documents provided by Mr Mann before the Tribunal: at, for example, CB 134-183 and 202-226, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to consider those documents in circumstances where Mr Mann failed to appear at the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing: Migration Act, s 362B(1A)(b). Otherwise, the evidence indicates that:
(a)Mr Mann was invited to the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing (on 1 March 2018), but did not attend;
(b)following the First Tribunal Decision Mr Mann failed to apply for reinstatement of the Review Application within the 14 day period prescribed under s 362B(1B) of the Migration Act for the making of an application for reinstatement; and
(c)on 21 March 2018, six days after the 14 day period prescribed under s 362B(1B) of the Migration Act for the making of an application for reinstatement of the Review Application had expired, Mr Mann contacted the Tribunal “and requested his final dismissal”: CB 302.
The facts alleged in ground 1 are simply not made out, and do not disclose jurisdictional error in the Second Tribunal Decision.
Otherwise
If ground 1 is otherwise intended to allege that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by failing to extend the period of time in which Mr Mann could seek reinstatement of the Review Application, then ground 1 must fail as it misapprehends the Tribunal’s statutory powers. Under s 362B(1B) of the Migration Act Mr Mann had 14 days after receipt of notice of the First Tribunal Decision to apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the Review Application. Mr Mann did not make a reinstatement application. As Mr Mann, who had notice of the 14 day reinstatement period, failed to make a reinstatement application the Tribunal had no discretion to extend the timeframe for the making of a reinstatement application as s 362B(1E) of the Migration Act required the Tribunal to confirm the First Tribunal Decision to dismiss the Review Application. As was observed by the Federal Court in AYT16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 252 (“AYT16”) at [11] per Perram J:
...since the Appellant had not sought to reinstate the application within 14 days of being notified of it, this was an argument which could not succeed. Once that fact was established, the Tribunal’s hands were tied and the dismissal had to be confirmed. The Federal Circuit Court so held. It was correct to do so.
See also, to similar effect, Khatri v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2018] FCA 1310 at [38] per Wigney J; AYT16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 2733 at [28] per Judge Driver (an appeal from which was dismissed in AYT16); Chen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 413 at [21]-[23] per Judge Lucev (“Chen”).
As Mr Mann did not seek reinstatement of the Review Application within the 14 day reinstatement period, the Tribunal was legally required to confirm the First Tribunal Decision, as it did in the Second Tribunal Decision: CB 299-300. It follows that the Second Tribunal Decision is not affected by jurisdictional error.
First Tribunal Decision
Although it is strictly unnecessary for the Court to consider the First Tribunal Decision as it is not the subject of the Judicial Review Application it is appropriate to observe, given that the Minister made submissions in relation thereto, that in the Court’s view the First Tribunal Decision is not affected by jurisdictional error in circumstances where:
(a)the Tribunal’s invitation to Mr Mann to attend the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing complied with the requirements under ss 360 and s 360A of the Migration Act;
(b)Mr Mann failed to attend the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing, the Tribunal was entitled to proceed under s 362B of the Migration Act and make the First Tribunal Decision dismissing the Review Application without any further consideration of the Review Application or any information before the Tribunal;
(c)nothing in the First Tribunal Decision demonstrates that the Tribunal did not understand, or was not cognisant of the fact, that other options were available to it if Mr Mann did not appear, and the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal in making a decision pursuant to s 362B(1A)(b) of the Migration Act to dismiss the Review Application for non-appearance matters met the preconditions in ss 360, 379A and 360A, and there was therefore nothing unreasonable in that exercise of discretion which disclosed an evident, transparent and intelligible justification for the Tribunal proceeding as it did, and which was not made for reasons which were arbitrary, capricious, without common sense or plainly unjust: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW and Others [2018] HCA 30; (2018) 264 CLR 541; (2018) 92 ALJR 713; (2018) 75 AAR 434; (2018) 357 ALR 408; (2018) 163 ALD 1 at [4] and [9] per Keifel CJ; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li and Another [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 249 CLR 332; (2013) 87 ALJR 618; (2013) 297 ALR 225; (2013) 138 ALD 181; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh and Another [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437; (2014) 308 ALR 280; (2014) 139 ALD 50 at [44] per Allsop CJ, Robertson and Mortimer JJ, and especially so where:
(i)the Tribunal had postponed the Tribunal Hearing at the request of Mr Mann, and in the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing invitation, Mr Mann was notified that the Tribunal may dismiss the Review Application without any further consideration of the Review Application, or the information before, it in the event of Mr Mann’s non-attendance at the Re-scheduled Tribunal Hearing; and
(ii)no adjournment request was made to, nor any other contact was made with, the Tribunal by Mr Mann after the making of the First Tribunal Decision and before the making of the Second Tribunal Decision.
Finally, the Court observes that if there was any form of error in the First Tribunal Decision, Mr Mann had a remedy, in that he could seek reinstatement of the Review Application within the 14 day reinstatement period. Mr Mann did not avail himself of this opportunity, and it was not for the Tribunal to ensure that Mr Mann made the best of the opportunities afforded by the Tribunal: Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323; (1978) 1 ALD 383; ALR at 343 per Deane J; Chen at [51] per Judge Lucev.
Jurisdictional error otherwise
The Court is cognisant that Mr Mann was self-represented, and that in those circumstances the Court must endeavour to remain independently alert to the possibility of a jurisdictional error having been made by the Tribunal: MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392; (2015) 238 FCR 158 at [100] and [112] per Mortimer J; Ludgero v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1060; (2021) 358 FLR 215 at [26] per Judge Lucev. Save for the matters otherwise considered in these Reasons for Judgment, it is not evident to the Court that some other form of possibly arguable legal error, and in particular possibly arguable jurisdictional error, arises in relation to either the First or Second Tribunal Decision.
CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
The Court has concluded that:
(a)the Judicial Review Application does not properly invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, and is therefore incompetent;
(b)even if the Court had jurisdiction, no jurisdictional error as alleged in ground 1 of the Judicial Review Application, or otherwise, has been made out by Mr Mann; and
(c)it follows that there will be an order dismissing the Judicial Review Application filed on 17 April 2018, with costs.
I certify that the preceding twenty-seven (27) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Lucev. Associate:
Dated: 29 June 2023
1
27
0