Federal Court of Australia

Al-Dmour v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1251

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The name of the first respondent be changed to ‘Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’.

2.    The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal dated 21 April 2025 and filed on 23 April 2025 be dismissed.

3.    The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the sum of $4,000.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BROMWICH J:

1    The applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal from a decision of a judge of Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia: Al-Dmour v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 461 (primary judgment). The primary judge dismissed the applicant’s application for review of a registrar’s summary dismissal of the applicant’s judicial review application. By that judicial review application, the applicant had sought merits review of a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal, now the successor body, the Administrative Review Tribunal, the second respondent, to affirm a decision of a delegate of the first respondent, now known as the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, to refuse the grant of a medical treatment visa.

2    On 23 April 2025, the applicant filed an application in this Court for an extension of time and leave to appeal the primary judge’s decision, being 7 days late. Such a short delay might not have been a problem, but it was fatal because of the manifest lack of merit in the grounds of appeal sought to be advanced, which I turn to below. For the following reasons, the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Background

3    The registrar provided a pithy summary of the relevant history of the applicant’s attempts to obtain the medical treatment visa and other visas as follows (omitting court book references):

[5]    The applicant is a Jordanian national. He arrived in Australia in 2010 as the holder of a student visa and then unsuccessfully applied for a protection visa and a partner visa. In 2018 he unsuccessfully applied for ministerial intervention. The applicant applied for the visa that is the subject of these proceedings on 9 December 2018, which was one month after his ministerial intervention request was refused. In the visa application form the applicant said that he wished to remain in Australia from 6 December 2018 to 6 December 2019 so that he could receive psychotherapy for “mixed anxiety and depression”.

[6]    On 14 December 2018, the delegate refused to grant the visa to the applicant because they were not satisfied that he met the visa criterion imposed by cl 602.215 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). Clause 602.215 relevantly required the applicant to satisfy the delegate that he genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia for the purpose for which the visa would be granted. The gist of the delegate’s reasons was as follows:

In your Medical Treatment visa application, you have not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate your intention or incentive to depart Australia now or in the near future. Departmental records confirm that you have unsuccessfully applied for several permanent visas onshore and have taken every opportunity to present your case or circumstances for review. I find that your adverse migration history strongly indicates that you intend to continue to seek a visa pathway to remain in Australia on a permanent basis.

…

… On balance, I find that you are attempting to utilise the Medical Treatment visa pathway as a means to maintaining ongoing residence, and that you do not genuinely intend to remain in Australia on a temporary basis.

[7]    On 28 December 2018, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision. On 1 March 2021, the applicant participated in a hearing with the Tribunal by telephone. The Tribunal gave this summary of the hearing in its decision record:

The following is a summary of the information provided by the applicant at the hearing:

a.     He initially went to see Dr Mahmoud in December 2018. He then attended a session with Dr Mahmoud approximately every two months until mid-2019. He stopped attending sessions because he had financial issues.

b.     He wants the visa because he wants to try to get his life back so that he can continue to study. He applied for the visa because he was stressed from all his visa problems.

c.     He will leave Australia when he completes his studies here. He wants to obtain a Master’s in Accounting. He has made some enquiries of universities in Australia but they tell him he cannot enrol if he doesn’t have a Student visa.

d.     If he can’t get a Student visa he does not know what he will do or if or when he will leave Australia. He will have no options. He will not return to Jordan. If he has to leave maybe he will try to go to the Emirates or Qatar but he needs to complete his studies here to be able to go to another country.

e.     He did not leave Australia after December 2019. He thought he may get a chance to study here. He does not know what to say as to why he did not leave or what he will do if he cannot get a Student visa. It is a hard question.

f.     He does not do anything in Australia but work to cover his expenses.

g.     He is afraid of the situation in Jordan. His brother returned there and cannot find a job.

h.     He does not have any current arrangements for medical treatment in Australia. He cannot afford medical treatment.

[8]    The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet cl 602.215 for these reasons:

In all the circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a genuine intention to depart Australia. He has not done so despite the lack of any apparent need to remain in Australia apart from studying, which he is not doing or able to arrange.

4    The registrar then considered the grounds of review and found that none of them had any reasonable prospects of success, on the basis of the following reasoning (omitting court book references):

[9]    The application for judicial review contains three grounds. Ground one provides as follows:

The Tribunal failed to engage in active intellectual process and failed to apply reasonableness test. It should be noted that the objective of the Tribunal hearing is to provide fair hearing to me (the applicant) and to make sure that I am in proper mental and physical condition to provide evidence.

[10]    The Tribunal’s reasons self-evidently reveal an active intellectual engagement with the evidence concerning the dispositive issue, which was whether the applicant genuinely intended to remain in Australia temporarily for the purpose for which the medical treatment visa would be. In circumstances where the applicant’s own evidence was that he had not been receiving medical treatment since mid-2019 and had made no arrangements for present or future medical treatment and he had no intention of returning to his home country, the Tribunal’s conclusion that the applicant did not meet cl 602.215(1) was clearly open to it and did not lack an evident and intelligible justification. As to the other complaint in this ground, there was no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant was incapable of properly participating in the hearing, despite the hearing invitation having explicitly sought that information from the applicant in the event he desired an adjournment of the hearing. The applicant confirmed to me today that he had not sought an adjournment of the hearing at the Tribunal on medical grounds and the Tribunal’s summary of the hearing, the accuracy of which the applicant did not challenge in the hearing before me, reveals that the applicant was able to properly participate in that hearing. Ground one does not have reasonable prospects of success.

[11]    Ground two provides as follows:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal is infected with error not understanding that since January 2020 the pandemic has interrupted with any person seeking proper access for medical treatment as there were limitations and restrictions to gain access for treatment.

[12]    At the summary dismissal hearing I asked the applicant whether he mentioned anything about the COVID-19 Pandemic during the Tribunal hearing. He said he had not. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the applicant does not have reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting his application on the basis that the Tribunal erred by failing to bring to account the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the applicant’s ability to obtain medical treatment. There was simply no basis for the Tribunal to have thought that the COVID-19 Pandemic did have such an impact on the applicant.

[13]    Ground three provides as follows:

Tribunal failed to consider I am suffering from depression and mental health problem and request for further medical evidence.

[14]    In the hearing invitation the Tribunal asked the applicant to “provide at least 7 days before the hearing all documents you intend to rely on to support your case”, but nothing was provided and the applicant did not seek an extension of time to do so prior to the hearing. There was no reason for the Tribunal to repeat that request at or after the hearing in circumstances where the applicant’s oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing was that he had not been receiving medical treatment since mid-2019 and had made no arrangements for present or future medical treatment. Ground three does not enjoy reasonable prospects of success.

5    The registrar concluded that the applicant did not have reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting his application for judicial review and decided to exercise their discretion by summarily dismissing the application the subject of the summary dismissal decision.

6    On 7 March 2025, the applicant lodged an application to the Federal Circuit Court for review of the registrar’s summary dismissal decision. The applicant sought the following orders:

1.    That the orders of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia made on 04 March 2025 be set aside.

2.    In lieu thereof, that the following orders be made from this Court.

(a)    A WRIT OF CERTIORARI removing the decision of the second respondent into this Court to be quashed.

(b)    A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, directing the second respondent to rehear and re-determine the appellant's application to it according to law.

3.    That the first respondent pays the costs to the applicant.

7    The applicant did not file written submissions or evidence in advance of the hearing in that matter listed on 26 March 2026. The primary judge ultimately dismissed the applicant’s application for review of the summary dismissal decision. In the course of giving reasons, the primary judge recorded the following account of what took place at the hearing before his Honour, after the applicant had been given the benefit of a short adjournment to consider any submissions that he wanted to make:

[20]    After the 10 minute break, I invited the applicant to make oral submissions. The applicant stated that he had no submissions to make. I asked the applicant if he had read the Registrar Decision. The applicant replied that he had read the Registrar Decision. I asked the applicant if there was any part of the Registrar Decision with which he disagreed. The applicant replied that there was no part of the Registrar Decision with which he disagreed. I asked the applicant if there was any part of the Tribunal’s decision he considered was not correct. The applicant replied to the effect that there was no part of the Tribunal’s decision which he considered was not correct. I asked the applicant why, if he had no complaint about the Tribunal’s decision or the Registrar Decision, he lodged the Review Application on 7 March 2025. The applicant replied that this was his only option. I infer that the applicant considered lodging the Review Application was his only option to remain lawfully in Australia for a further period of time.

[21]    Although not determinative to whether or not there is a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision, it appeared from the applicant’s conduct at the hearing on 26 March 2025 that he filed the Review Application for the collateral purpose of extending his bridging visa to remain lawfully in Australia, rather than for the purpose of persuading the Court that there is a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

Application to the Federal Court of Australia

8    On 22 April 2025, the applicant made the present application for an extension of time and leave to appeal from the primary judgment. At the hearing of the application before me, I asked, and the applicant confirmed, that what he told the primary judge was true (as reproduced at [7] above). That is, there is still no part of the Tribunal’s decision which he considers was not correct, no part of the registrar’s decision with which he disagreed and that lodging the review application was his only option to remain lawfully in Australia for a further period of time.

9    By way of the draft notice of appeal annexed to the applicant’s affidavit dated 22 April 2025, the applicant advances the following prospective grounds of appeal (verbatim):

Grounds of appeal

1.    The Federal Circuit and Family Court Judge failed to evaluate that the Tribunal failed to engage in active intellectual process and failed to apply reasonableness test It should be noted that the objective of the Tribunal hearing is to provide fair hearing to me (the applicant) and to make sure that I am in proper mental and physical condition to provide evidence.

2.    The Federal Circuit and Family Court Judge failed to evaluate the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is infected with error not understanding that since January 2020 the pandemic has interrupted with any person seeking proper access for medical treatment as there were limitations and restrictions to gain access for treatment.

3.    The Federal Circuit and Family Court Judge failed to evaluate the Tribunal's decision failing to consider I am suffering from depression and mental health problem and request for further medical evidence.

4.    The Federal Circuit and Family Court Judge failed to evaluate the Tribunal decision infected with a legal error because there is no evidence provided by the Tribunal in support of its decision.

10    The substance of the proposed grounds of appeal is nothing more than the assertion of error on the part of the primary judge for not finding the errors on the part of the Tribunal asserted before the registrar, and on review before the primary judge. The primary judge considered the reasons of the registrar and, unsurprisingly, could not find any fault in them. No such error was apparent on the face of those reasons, and, as noted above, the applicant himself did not believe that there was any such error.

11    The Minister provided clear and concise submissions as to why the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal should be dismissed, seeking $4,000 in costs, being less than half of the sum permitted in the short form costs orders provided for by item 15.2 in Schedule 3 to the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

12    The applicant filed written submissions. The applicant confirmed that he used artificial intelligence to create them. They make no genuine attempt to identify any error on the part of the primary judge, and for that reason do not need to be considered further. In light of the evident underlying objective of delaying the apparently inevitable, that is not surprising. The applicant, as he candidly admits, is doing no more than trying to extend his bridging visa to remain lawfully in Australia, rather than genuinely establish any error at all, let alone jurisdictional error, in refusing him the visa that he seeks, or any other visa, which would allow him to stay here.

Conclusion

13    I am satisfied that the primary judge was entirely correct to dismiss the review application before his Honour. Accordingly, the present application for an extension of time and leave to appeal must be dismissed with costs. I consider that the Minister has been generous to a fault in seeking less than half the sum provided for by the rules of this Court. Accordingly, the costs are fixed in the sum of $4,000.

Associate:

Dated:    28 August 2026