Background
Andrew Steven Manu, a New Zealand citizen, had his Special Category (Temporary) (subclass 444) visa mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). A ministerial delegate declined to revoke the cancellation, and the Administrative Review Tribunal affirmed that decision on 6 June 2025.
The Tribunal did not provide its written reasons until 19 September 2025, 105 days after its decision. Manu had already filed a timely judicial-review application. Although later orders permitted him to amend that application and submit evidence and written argument, he filed no additional material. A single judge dismissed his application, and Manu appealed to the Full Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Full Court dismissed the appeal. The delayed reasons, though substantial and regrettable, did not establish procedural unfairness. They were issued after the Tribunal had decided the case, Manu received them well before the judicial-review hearing, and he had an opportunity to amend his case or seek more time. He did not show that the delay caused his difficulties in presenting the application.
Manu also failed to prove that the primary-court hearing was unfair. No hearing transcript was placed before the Full Court, so the record did not establish that necessary procedural explanations had been omitted. Nor did Manu identify any particular ground, evidence, submission, or application that he lost the opportunity to advance.
The Tribunal had expressly considered Manu’s seriously ill mother, the hardship and permanent family separation resulting from removal, and his ties to Australia. His argument that these considerations deserved greater weight sought impermissible merits review rather than identifying legal unreasonableness. The separate challenge concerning future medical or counselling arrangements also failed because the evidence did not contradict the Tribunal’s finding and no material jurisdictional error was shown.
Key Takeaways
- A substantial delay in delivering reasons after an administrative decision does not itself establish procedural unfairness; an applicant must demonstrate resulting practical injustice.
- An unrepresented litigant must receive a fair opportunity to participate, but the court need not formulate legal grounds, give legal advice, or conduct the case on the litigant’s behalf.
- Where a tribunal expressly considers family hardship, disagreement with the weight assigned to that hardship ordinarily raises a merits complaint, not legal unreasonableness.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the evidentiary burden on appellants alleging unfairness in judicial-review proceedings. Without a transcript or evidence identifying what procedural assistance was withheld and how it affected the case, an appellate court may be unable to find that the hearing was unfair.
It also reinforces the boundary between judicial review and merits review in visa-cancellation cases: courts examine whether relevant considerations were lawfully addressed, not whether they would have struck a different balance between family hardship and protection of the Australian community.