Search

Damuni v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship – Leave to Extend Time Appeal Dismissed

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed an application by Mr Sivaviolo Damuni for leave to extend time to appeal a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal, which had affirmed the non-revocation of his cancelled Subclass 155 visa. The applicant, a Fijian citizen who arrived in Australia in 1991 at age 5, had his visa cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act due to a 2023 armed robbery conviction resulting in two years and eight months' imprisonment. The Court held it was not necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to grant the extension, finding the 35-day appeal deadline had passed and the proposed grounds of appeal did not warrant relief.

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship – Student Visa Appeal Dismissed

Jagnandan Singh appealed the dismissal by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) of his judicial review application challenging the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision to affirm refusal of his Student (subclass 500) visa. The Tribunal had found Mr Singh failed to satisfy the genuine temporary entrant (GTE) criterion in cl 500.212 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), citing his nine sequential vocational qualifications over 11 years and the limited value of further study. On 21 April 2026, Justice McDonald dismissed the appeal with costs, finding no error in the primary judge's judgment and no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.

Seemab v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs - Partner Visa Appeal Dismissed

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal of Arsla Seemab challenging a Federal Circuit and Family Court decision. The appellant failed to demonstrate any appealable error in the lower court's dismissal of her judicial review application regarding the refusal of a Partner visa by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The case concerned whether Ms Seemab satisfied the criteria under cl 820.211 of sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), specifically the requirement to be a spouse of an Australian citizen at the time of her visa application. The Tribunal had affirmed the delegate's decision finding she was not her sponsor's spouse at the relevant time.

Feng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship — PIC 4020 False Information Appeal Allowed

The Federal Court of Australia allowed an appeal by Chiu-He Feng against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020). The Court found the Tribunal had erred in its construction of PIC 4020, which requires that information be 'purposely untrue' and that 'an element of fraud or deception' is necessary — not merely indifference to accuracy. The Tribunal's decision of 26 November 2020 is quashed and the matter remitted to the Administrative Review Tribunal for determination according to law. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is ordered to pay costs.

Commissioner of Taxation v Huang (No 2) - Shortfall Penalty Remittal to ART

The Federal Court of Australia set aside part of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision regarding the Commissioner of Taxation's objection to shortfall penalties and remitted the matter to the Administrative Review Tribunal for redetermination. The Court held that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the shortfall penalty assessments were excessive or incorrect under s 14ZZK(b)(i) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth). The ART must determine the matter on existing AAT findings of fact and evidence.

Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship - Subclass 187 Visa Appeal Dismissed

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by three Indian nationals (Sanjeeev Kumar, Neelam Rani, and Anika Choudhary) seeking judicial review of decisions refusing subclass 187 (Regional Employer Nomination) visas. The appellants failed to satisfy clause 187.233 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 because the employer sponsor had withdrawn its nomination application, meaning no valid nomination existed. The Court ordered the first and second appellants to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $5,000.

Tax Practitioners Board v LMU25 - Tax Agent Registration Termination Judicial Review

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the Tax Practitioners Board's judicial review application challenging the Administrative Review Tribunal's interim stay order preventing implementation of LMU25's tax agent registration termination. The Court held that publishing the termination decision on the public register would constitute 'implementation' of the decision, over which the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant a stay. The Board was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.