Ram v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 984
•1 July 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Ram v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 984
File number(s): SYG 1324 of 2021
Judgment of: JUDGE D HUMPHREYS Date of judgment: 1 July 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Medical Treatment (Support Person) visa – contemporaneous hearing – whether the applicant met the requirements of the visa – where the grounds of judicial review do not reveal jurisdictional error – application dismissed with costs Legislation: Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Cases cited: SZRHL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2013) 136 ALD 641 Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 32 Date of hearing: 18 June 2025 Place: Parramatta Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-represented litigant Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms Burnett, Clayton Utz Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
SYG 1324 of 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: RAKESH RATISH RAM
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE D HUMPHREYS
DATE OF ORDER:
1 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the First Respondent be amended to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.
2.The application is dismissed.
3.The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $ 3,371.30.
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 D HUMPHREYS
INTRODUCTION
This matter was heard contemporaneously with a second matter Sharma v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 985 (“Sharma”).
This matter is an application for judicial review of the (then) Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s (“the Tribunal”) decision, dated 16 June 2021, affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, (“the delegate”) to refuse to grant the applicant, Mr Ram, a Medical Treatment (Support Person) visa (“the visa”).
Sharma related to an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision dated 16 June 2021 affirming the decision of the delegate to refuse to grant the applicant’s wife, Ms Sharma, a Medical Treatment (Class UB) Subclass 602 visa.
The first respondent concedes that if Ms Sharma’s application is successful, then the decision that determines the applicant’s Application should also be quashed and both matters remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration. If the application by Ms Sharma fails, then it was submitted that the applicant’s Application for judicial review must also fail.
For the reasons outlined below, the Application should be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
The background of this matter largely reflects the background set out in Sharma.
On 18 January 2019, the applicant applied for the visa.
On February 2019, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy cl 602.212(4) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (“the Regulations”). The applicant’s wife’s Medical Treatment visa had been refused by the delegate on 18 January 2021.
The applicant’s wife sought review of the delegate’s decision in respect of the Medical Treatment visa.
On 17 March 202, the applicant and his wife appeared before the Tribunal however, the hearing was adjourned due to the applicant’s wife having a medical episode. The applicant returned for a joint hearing with his wife on 15 June 2021.
On 16 June 2021 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision.
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
The Tribunal’s decision in this matter comprises of 3 pages and 15 paragraphs.
At [1] - [7], the Tribunal set out the application for review and the background of the matter.
At [8], the Tribunal noted that the issue in the current case was whether the applicant met the requirements for a Medical Treatment visa on the basis that he is seeking to support a person who holds a Subclass 602 visa.
The Tribunal noted the various matters it discussed with the applicant and his wife on 17 March and 15 June 2021 [10].
The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant did not meet the criteria set out in cl 602.212(4) or that any of the other alternative sub criteria was relevant in considering the applicant’s application.
At [15], the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Medical Treatment (Visitor) (Class UB) visa.
GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
The applicant advances two grounds of judicial review contained in an Originating Application filed on 14 July 2021. They are as follows:
1. My wife, Shud Kirti Sharma, suffers serious medical condition and when she applied for medical treatment visa I applied as dependant on her and as her husband.
2. I do not agree with the decision of the Tribunal as the Tribunal was not reasonable in refusing my wife's application.
THE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
The applicant appeared before the Court unrepresented. He was assisted by an interpreter. Prior to the hearing commencing, the Court ensured that the applicant was in possession of a copy of the relevant Court book and that the respondent’s written submissions had been translated to him. The Court also ensured the applicant had access to a pen and paper so he could take notes during the course of the hearing should he wish to do so.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Court explained it was undertaking judicial review, not merits review and the difference between the two types of review. The Court also explained the procedure by which the hearing would be undertaken.
Despite Court orders, no written submissions or other material was provided to the Court by the applicant in support of his case, prior to the hearing. At the hearing, the Court was provided with a written letter from the applicant’s sister- in-law. The Court accepted this as submissions. However, to the extent that it raised fresh material, this was ignored.
The Court was informed that that applicant’s wife has now been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and requires specialised medical attention, including medication, that is not available in Fiji.
The Court was asked if it could grant the applicant and his wife some sympathy and allow them to stay in Australia with their immediate family, and receive the benefit of medical treatment not available in Fiji.
THE FIRST RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
The first respondent submits that neither of the grounds articulated by the applicant identify any error, let alone jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision and the application ought to be dismissed.
Ground one merely states that the applicant has applied for the visa to support his wife who requires treatment.
Ground two simply expresses disagreement with the decision of the Tribunal not to grant the applicant’s wife a Medical Treatment (Class UB) Subclass 602 visa. The decision of the Tribunal in respect of the applicant’s wife is not the subject of this application, nor is it open to this honourable Court to undertake impermissible merits review: SZRHL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2013) 136 ALD 641 at [18].
The first respondent otherwise submits that the application falls or succeeds on the outcome of the application for judicial review filed by the applicant’s wife in Sharma.
CONSIDERATION
During the course of the hearing, the Court explained to the applicant that if his wife’s application for judicial review was unsuccessful, then as a matter of course, his application would also be unsuccessful. His visa application depended on his wife being granted her visa.
As set out in the Court’s judgement in his wife’s application for judicial review, the Court has been unable to find any jurisdictional error relating to her application. His application must therefore fail.
In so far as the applicant has relied upon the grounds of judicial review set out in his initiating application, they do not reveal any jurisdictional error. Ground one is merely a statement of fact.
Ground two simply expresses vehement disagreement with the decision arrived at by the Tribunal in respect of his wife. That is a separate matter and if anything asks the Court to undertake impermissible merits review in relation to his wife’s application. Ground two has no merit.
DETERMINATION
The Court has perused the decision record of the Tribunal and the relevant Court book, but is unable to find any unarticulated jurisdictional error. In these circumstances the application must be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding thirty-two (32) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge D Humphreys. Associate: AD
Dated: 1 July 2025
1
2
1