Federal Court of Australia

Ahsan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 850

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The application for extension of time and leave to appeal filed on 4 July 2025 is dismissed.

2.    The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MCELWAINE J:

Introduction

1    This is a student visa case. The applicant seeks an extension of time and leave to appeal the orders of Judge Young in Ahsan v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 836 made on 5 June 2025 (PJ). Judge Young dismissed a de novo application for review of Registrar’s decision whereby the applicant’s application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Review Tribunal was summarily dismissed.

2    The applicant now applies out of time to this Court. On 4 July 2025 he filed the present application and asserted two grounds of jurisdictional error. The first that Judge Young failed to find that the Tribunal “fell in jurisdictional error in determining without a logical and probative basis that all the evidence upon which his claim was based was false” and the second that her Honour failed to find the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by “misapprehending the evidence and then use its erroneous findings about the evidence [sic]”.

3    The applicant’s affidavit in support is manifestly deficient on the delay issue. He simply asserts:

I do affirm that I couldn’t lodge the appeal within time due to unavoidable personal circumstances that of course [sic] not under my ostensible control.

4    That is the extent of his explanation.

5    Another unsatisfactory aspect of the applicant’s prosecution of his application is that I made procedural orders on 29 May 2026, including that the applicant file an outline of submissions by 4.00pm on 12 June 2026. He has failed to comply with that order. I have decided to determine the application on the papers pursuant to r 36.41 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) conformably with the applicant’s request.

Background

6    The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. He applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa (Visa) on 8 March 2021. On 31 March 2022 the Department sent a letter to the applicant by way of email inviting him to comment on adverse information received concerning his Visa application. The adverse information related to serious concerns that the account maintenance certificate the applicant supplied in support of his application was a “bogus document” and consequently, the applicant might not meet the Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020 contained in cl 4020 of sch 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

7    On 21 April 2022 the applicant provided a written response to the Department. He submitted evidence to the effect that his certificate was genuine and that he only had three units remaining to complete his studies, and thereafter he would then return to Pakistan.

8    On 9 September 2022 the applicant appointed a registered migration agent, who subsequently provided further supporting material to the Department.

9    On 4 March 2023, a delegate of the Minister refused grant the Visa on the basis the applicant failed to satisfy PIC 4020. As such, the applicant did not meet cl 500.217 of sch 2 of the Regulations.

10    The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review.

11    On 14 November 2023 the applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal and gave evidence. The Tribunal delivered oral reasons which affirmed the decision of the delegate.

12    Later, on 19 December 2023, the Tribunal issued written reasons (TD). The Tribunal noted the information the applicant provided in relation to his Visa application (TD [3]-[7]). The Tribunal stated that after performing its own search into the information provided by the applicant it was satisfied that the information provided in the certificate was correct and therefore the applicant met the requirements of cl 4020(1) (TD [9]-[10]).

13    The Tribunal found at TD [11] that the applicant had not enrolled in any other course since completing his course of study approximately 12 months prior, nor had he returned to his home country contrary to his written response to the Department dated 21 April 2022.

14    The Tribunal emphasised that it discussed with the applicant that cl 500.211 required that he be enrolled in a course of study at the time of the decision (TD [11]). The applicant explained that he had not enrolled in a course of study since completing his previous studies due to wanting to enrol in a master’s degree and was awaiting the outcome of the Tribunals review (TD [13]-[14]).

15    The Tribunal found this was not a reasonable course of action to take and, therefore, on the evidence before it, the applicant did not satisfy cl 500.211 of the Regulations (TD [13]-[14]). Accordingly, the delegate’s decision was affirmed.

16    Being dissatisfied with the Tribunal decision, the applicant sought judicial review in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Circuit Court).

17    His application was summarily dismissed by a registrar on 4 April 2025. From there, the applicant lodged a de novo review application, which Judge Young dismissed for the comprehensive reasons set out in the PJ.

18    Being further dissatisfied, the applicant now applies to this Court out of time and for leave to appeal the Circuit Court orders. He failed to meet the 14-day time limit for a leave application: r 35.13 of the Rules.

Determination

19    The Minister is correct to submit that the general principle applicable to prescribed time limits for the commencement of an appeal or an application for leave to appeal is that they are not merely aspirational. Parties are entitled to assume that once an appeal period expires the litigation has come to an end as defined by the judgment at first instance: BLD16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1400 at [3] (Derrington J).

20    The Minister is also correct to submit that whilst no specific prejudice would be caused if an extension of time is granted, the Minister has a legitimate interest in the timely resolution of visa applications and related litigation, and the absence of prejudice alone is not a sufficient reason to grant an extension of time; WQRJ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 736 at [40]-[42] (Derrington J); Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen [1984] FCA 176; (1984) 3 FCR 344 at 349 and 352 (Wilcox J).

21    I have concluded that the application must be dismissed for two reasons.

22    First, the application fails at the threshold of no adequate explanation for the delay.

23    Second, as explained in a little more detail, the proposed appeal grounds are manifestly hopeless.

24    Ground one fails the basal requirement to identify error in an appeal. It is also misconceived in that the Tribunal did not proceed on the basis that the applicant’s evidence was false. There is no attempt to grapple with why the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision.

25    Ground two is in incomprehensible in form. There is no identification of what misapprehension of evidence the Tribunal laboured under or what erroneous findings are asserted.

26    Regrettably this is another example of cases in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) jurisdiction where litigants in person fail to grasp the fundamental principle that the appellate function is limited to the correction of error. Unsuccessful arguments are not simply to be re-run on appeal in this Court: Bahonko v Sterjov [2008] FCAFC 30; (2008) 166 FCR 415 at [3] (Gyles, Stone and Buchanan JJ); Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172; Australian Security Academy Pty Ltd v Australasian Institute of Chartered Loss Adjusters Pty Ltd [2026] FCAFC 16 at [51]-[53] (Wheelahan, O’Sullivan and McElwaine JJ).

27    Of course, some latitude is usually afforded to self-represented applicants who doubtless find it challenging to draft intelligible appeal grounds. In such cases the provision of written submissions may illuminate the contended errors. The applicant was afforded that opportunity, but failed to take it up.

28    There is one further matter. The Minister maintains the submission put to the primary judge at PJ [46] that the proceedings in this matter have been brought for the ulterior purpose of extending the applicant’s residence in Australia for reasons unrelated to his studies which he completed in December 2022. I agree with the primary judge that given my findings above and the lack of sufficient evidence to make a finding, it is unnecessary to determine this issue.

29    For these reasons the application is dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:    30 June 2026