Whether an Unauthorized Visa Application Lodged by a Migration Agent Constitutes Jurisdictional Error if Later Ratified by the Applicant?

Migration Agent Fraud and Protection Visa Validity: When Later Awareness of False Claims Removes Jurisdictional Error in Judicial Review?

Introduction

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case BJK19 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 5, File No SYG 805 of 2019, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)

Presiding Judge: Judge Kaur-Bains

Cause of Action: Migration judicial review, alleging jurisdictional error on the basis of migration agent fraud said to invalidate a Protection (Class XA) (subclass 866) visa application

Judgment Date: 9 January 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Migration agent fraud and third-party dishonesty

Keyword 3: Valid application as a jurisdictional fact under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 65(1)

Keyword 4: Stultification of the legislative scheme under ss 47 and 65

Keyword 5: Reckless indifference and non-complicity principles

Keyword 6: Unrepresented litigant, adjournment practice, evidence directions, and cross-examination management

Background:

This was a judicial review application brought in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia by an Applicant family unit who had sought a protection visa. The protection visa process had already run its course: a departmental delegate refused the visa, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the refusal. The Applicants then came to Court seeking judicial review, which is not a merits re-hearing but a legal review focused on whether the decision-maker acted within lawful authority.

The Applicants’ case was narrowly framed. They alleged that their protection visa application should be treated as invalid because it was said to have been lodged through the fraudulent conduct of a migration agent. In practical terms, their position was: if the original protection visa application was not a valid application, then the delegate should not have considered it, and the downstream consequences in the migration system should not attach to them. The Court’s task was to decide whether the kind of fraud alleged had legal effect at the critical point in time and whether it undermined the statutory duties in the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) so as to create jurisdictional error.

Core Disputes and Claims:

Core legal focus question: Did alleged fraud by a migration agent invalidate the protection visa application at the time of the delegate’s decision under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 65(1), such that the decision was stultified and infected by jurisdictional error, even where the Applicants later became aware of the application and chose to continue it through a new agent?

Applicants’ claim and relief sought:

A declaration or judicial review outcome premised on the proposition that the protection visa application was invalid because it was lodged without their knowledge and contained untrue protection claims created by the agent.
By implication, relief that would prevent the statutory consequences that attach to a refused protection visa application, particularly consequences linked to the statutory scheme governing repeat applications and bars on further applications.

Respondent’s position:

The Respondent contended that even if there was dishonest conduct at the early stage, the law requires the Court to assess validity at the time the decision under s 65(1) is made.
The Respondent argued that the evidence showed the Applicants became aware of the nature of the application before the delegate decided it and consciously continued with it through another agent, meaning there was no operative fraud stultifying the statutory process at the critical moment.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The narrative began in a familiar migration setting: a time-limited temporary visa approaching expiry, a need to regularise status, and reliance on migration assistance in a local community.

The Applicants were a married couple and citizens of the People’s Republic of China. They entered Australia on student-related visas in 2012 and 2013. As the end of their student visa period approached, the first Applicant wanted to extend lawful stay. On the evidence accepted by the Court, the Applicants sought professional help in the Campsie area after seeing advertising for a visa agency. Like many people navigating immigration systems in a second language, they relied on the intermediary’s description of what was being done for them.

The Applicants’ evidence was that their intention was straightforward: they wanted a student visa extension to buy time, and they were also looking toward an employer-sponsored pathway. The relationship between the Applicants and their first agent was established in a routine way: contact by phone, an invitation to attend an office, completion of an information collection form in Mandarin, and payment of professional fees.

The conflict emerged later, when the Applicants came to believe that the first agent had not done what they asked. Their story was that, without their knowledge, the agent lodged a protection visa application on their behalf. A protection visa pathway is not merely another visa type; it carries a distinct evidentiary and credibility burden because it involves claims of persecution or serious harm. For someone who says they never intended to make such claims, a lodged protection visa application can feel like a legal trap: if refused, it can alter later options, and it can place them into a statutory landscape designed to prevent repeated unsuccessful protection claims.

The decisive moments, as the Court ultimately framed them, were not limited to the alleged mis-step at the beginning. The real turning points were:

When the Applicants found out what had actually been lodged.
What they did once they found out.
Whether, before the delegate made the s 65(1) decision, the Applicants had effectively adopted the application process and continued it, such that the legal character of the application at decision time could not be said to be “stultified” by earlier fraud.

These moments transformed the case from a simple narrative of being misled into a more complex legal question about timing, knowledge, and the operation of statutory duties.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The original protection visa application (dated 13 March 2015) contained protection claims the first Applicant later said were false and were included without his knowledge. The stated protection narrative included reporting corruption, a local official’s alleged bribery to win a village election, claimed beatings, and threats against the second Applicant.
The Applicants’ affidavits described engagement with a Campsie-based agency and communications with a person said to be the agent, including:
- An initial conversation in Mandarin about extending a student visa.
- A meeting where the second Applicant collected forms and placed the first Applicant on speakerphone to explain matters.
- A fee of AUD $2,500 for the agent’s service.
- A Mandarin document headed “Northern Family 866 Visa Personal Information Collection Form 2015 Edition”, which the Applicants said they completed. They acknowledged seeing the number 866 but said they did not understand that 866 referred to a protection visa subclass.
The Applicants asserted that their immigration status was affected by the agent’s fraudulent conduct and that they could have pursued other visa options if the protection visa had not been lodged for them.
The Applicants relied on the proposition that migration agent fraud can render a visa application invalid, and that the Court must determine validity as a jurisdictional fact for the purposes of s 65(1).

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The Respondent’s submissions accepted the legal possibility that fraudulent conduct by a migration agent can invalidate a visa application, but maintained that validity is assessed at the time of decision under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 65(1), and not merely by reference to the moment the application form was first lodged.
The Respondent pointed to legal authority, particularly the Full Court’s reasoning in Maharjan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 258 FCR 1, to emphasise that “application” refers to a process, not merely a form, and that fraud may occur at various points but must be evaluated for its operative effect on the statutory scheme at decision time.
The Respondent relied on contemporaneous documents and concessions in cross-examination indicating that before the delegate’s decision on 5 May 2016:
- The Applicants became aware that the protection visa application had been lodged.
- The Applicants engaged a new agent and authorised him to act for them in relation to the protection visa application.
- The Applicants did not withdraw the application and instead continued to pursue it through the statutory processes.

Core Dispute Points:

Timing and legal effect: Even if there was fraudulent conduct when the application was initiated, did it still operate to invalidate the application at the time the delegate made the s 65(1) decision?
Stultification of statutory duties: Did the alleged fraud prevent the delegate or Tribunal from properly performing duties under ss 47 and 65, including the duty not to consider an invalid application?
Applicants’ knowledge and adoption: Did the Applicants, once aware, consciously continue the protection visa process, thereby removing the operative effect of any earlier fraud for the purposes of s 65(1)?
Complicity or reckless indifference: Were the Applicants complicit or recklessly indifferent in a way that would defeat reliance on third-party fraud principles?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits are the courtroom’s structured way of turning lived events into admissible, organised evidence. In this case, the affidavits became the battleground for a subtle but decisive contest: whether the narrative was one of ongoing victimhood by fraud, or one of later conscious adoption and continuation.

The Applicants’ early affidavit position, affirmed shortly after commencing judicial review, emphasised a clean storyline: they asked for a student visa extension, the agent lodged a protection visa without authority, and they suffered consequences. That framing was direct and emotionally coherent, and it aligned with a lay understanding of fraud.

However, as the case progressed, the affidavits filed later—after the Court explained what evidence would be needed—filled in greater detail, including:

How the initial engagement occurred and the context of local reputation and marketing.
The Mandarin information collection form and what it did and did not say.
The Applicants’ interactions with a later migration agent.
The moment they discovered the true nature of what had been lodged.

The strategic tension between the affidavits lay here: one can honestly believe an application was unauthorised at the start, while also later deciding to continue it for pragmatic reasons once the application exists and the clock is ticking. The legal system does not treat these as the same thing. The Court was required to identify what was true at the legally critical time and how that truth interacts with the statutory scheme.

In comparing how “the same fact” was expressed, the key example was the Applicants’ treatment of awareness:

The Applicants portrayed the application as lodged without their knowledge.
The Respondent pressed that they became aware before the delegate’s decision and then took steps that indicated approval of ongoing representation on the protection application.

The Judge’s procedural directions concerning affidavits had a clear strategic intent anchored in fairness and the Court’s limited role on judicial review. The Court explained that allegations of fraud require evidence of the circumstances: what the agent was instructed to do, what was said, what documents were signed, what communications occurred, and how the alleged dishonesty affected statutory decision-making. Without this, the fraud allegation would remain a claim without a proper evidentiary base.

The directions also served procedural fairness to the Respondent: if the Applicants wished to allege fraud, the Respondent needed a proper opportunity to investigate and prepare cross-examination. This is particularly important where serious allegations are made against third parties and where the legal consequences can ripple through the migration system.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before final reasons were delivered, the Court made or foreshadowed procedural arrangements to ensure the matter could be decided fairly and on a proper evidentiary basis, including:

Explanation of judicial review function and the need for evidence capable of proving operative fraud affecting validity under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
Practice and procedure guidance to the unrepresented first Applicant about seeking an adjournment in order to file the kind of evidence necessary to support an allegation of fraud.
A fairness-based approach to adjournment, signalling that if the Applicants filed evidence, the Respondent would have time to investigate and prepare cross-examination, rather than being required to cross-examine without notice of the case to be met.
After judgment had been reserved, leave was granted to reopen the case once the first Applicant indicated he wished to adduce further evidence on fraud.
Timetabling directions were made for:
- filing further affidavits by the Applicants,
- filing further submissions by the Respondent,
- resumption of the hearing part-heard with cross-examination.
At the resumed hearing, the Respondent cross-examined the first Applicant, while the Applicants relied on the further affidavits.
The final order of the Court was that the application be dismissed, with the issue of costs to be addressed separately.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The hearing unfolded in stages, and the structure mattered. On the first hearing date, the first Applicant appeared unrepresented and required interpreter assistance. The Court performed a dual function: it managed the hearing and also ensured the Applicant understood what must be proven to succeed on judicial review.

At this stage, the case was dangerously thin on evidence. The Court explained that simply asserting fraud was not enough. The Applicant needed to provide specific evidence: the engagement circumstances, what instructions were given, what documents were completed, what the agent said, what the Applicant believed he was authorising, and how any dishonesty affected the statutory processes.

The Court also explained the available procedural mechanism: an adjournment to file evidence. The Applicant initially declined that course, choosing to proceed. The Judge warned, in substance, that without evidence there would be no factual foundation for a finding of operative fraud, and the application would fail.

After judgment was reserved, the matter was listed for judgment. At that later listing, the first Applicant shifted position and asked to put on further evidence. The Respondent did not oppose reopening. The Court granted leave to reopen and set a timetable, culminating in a resumed hearing where the Respondent cross-examined the first Applicant.

This staging is not merely procedural trivia. It reveals the Court’s approach to an unrepresented litigant: practical explanation of what must be proven, a fair opportunity to gather evidence, and a balanced approach to the Respondent’s right to meet the case through investigation and cross-examination.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive confrontation was not about whether the original protection claims were true. The confrontation was about knowledge, timing, and adoption.

The Applicants’ evidence on the early period was accepted as consistent and not suggestive of collusion. The Court accepted that when the application form was completed and lodged in March 2015, the Applicants did not know they were pursuing a protection visa. They believed they were extending a student visa.

However, the Respondent’s cross-examination and documents focused on what happened later, before the delegate’s decision in May 2016:

The Applicants met a second agent who told them that a protection visa application had been lodged.
The Applicants became upset and confronted the first agent.
The second agent discussed that the protection application could be withdrawn.
Despite that, the Applicants instructed the second agent to continue acting for them.

The documentary spine supporting this included:

A contemporaneous email from the second agent to the Department stating authority to act for the Applicants on a protection visa application and enclosing a Form 956.
The Applicants’ confirmation of signatures and instructions given to that agent.
Evidence that interview communications relating to the protection application were being managed through that agent’s email address, with the Applicants aware of the invitation.
Evidence that after the delegate refusal, review to the Tribunal was lodged with the second agent listed as representative, and the first Applicant accepted that the agent said he would seek review.

These were the kinds of facts that courts usually treat as powerful because they are anchored in contemporaneous records and admissions under cross-examination, rather than reconstructed narratives.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result

The Court’s reasoning turned on a legal test that required the Applicants to show more than wrongdoing by an agent. They needed to show fraud that stultified the s 65(1) decision-making process, and they needed to show lack of complicity or reckless indifference. The Court also accepted the proposition that validity must be assessed at the time the decision under s 65(1) is made, not at the earlier moment the form was lodged.

The determinative reasoning is captured in the Court’s focus on what the Applicants did once they knew. The Court held that the Applicants’ later knowledge and decision to continue the application meant the statutory scheme was not stultified at the delegate’s decision point.

“However, given the evidence … I find that prior to the delegate considering and making a decision … the [Applicants] were aware that [the first agent] had in fact lodged a protection visa application and the [Applicants] consciously decided to retain the new migration agent … to continue to act on that protection visa application. Accordingly, I find that there was no relevant fraud that stultified the operation of the legislative scheme and s 65(1) of the Act, for the delegate to consider a valid application …”

Why this was determinative: The Court’s approach treated the alleged fraud as having potentially existed at the start, but not as remaining legally operative at the crucial time. Once the Applicants knew what application existed and elected to continue it, the application, viewed as a process rather than merely a form, could no longer be characterised as invalid at the point of the delegate’s s 65(1) decision by reason of third-party fraud. In effect, the Applicants’ later decision broke the causal chain between initial dishonesty and statutory invalidity at the decision point.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court dismissed the judicial review application.

The operative order was:

The application is dismissed.

The Court indicated it would hear the parties on costs.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This judgment is a compact but high-value illustration of how Australian migration judicial review handles allegations of migration agent fraud. Its jurisprudential value is not in inventing a new rule, but in clarifying and applying an exacting framework:

Fraud allegations are not self-proving. The Court will require precise evidence about what was said, what was done, what documents existed, and how the fraud affected statutory duties.
The “valid application” question under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 65(1) is treated as a jurisdictional fact. The Court must determine it for itself on the evidence.
The legal meaning of “application” is broader than a single form. It comprehends an ongoing process, including supporting material and steps leading to the decision.
The timing of validity is critical. The Court accepted that validity is assessed at the time of the s 65(1) decision. This can produce an outcome that may feel counter-intuitive to a lay reader: an agent’s early misconduct does not necessarily invalidate a decision if, before the decision is made, the Applicant knows and nevertheless chooses to continue.
The Court’s management of an unrepresented litigant shows the practical expression of the duty to explain procedure without becoming the litigant’s advocate: the Judge explained the need for evidence, flagged the consequence of proceeding without it, and facilitated a fair reopening when the Applicant later sought to adduce evidence.

Judgment Points

Validity as a jurisdictional fact under s 65(1): The Court treated “after considering a valid application for a visa” as requiring the Court to decide whether the application was valid, relying on authority such as Gill v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 248 FCR 398 and Maharjan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 258 FCR 1.
Fraud must stultify the statutory scheme, not merely exist: The Court adopted the language of “stultified” decision-making. Fraud must affect the operation of the legislative scheme, including duties in ss 47, 49, and 65, and must involve actual dishonesty, not negligence, consistent with Minister for Home Affairs v DUA16 (2020) 271 CLR 550.
The “application” is a process: Consistent with Maharjan, the Court accepted that “application” can refer to the ongoing process of applying and materials provided up to decision time, not only the initial form.
Timing: validity assessed at decision time: The Court accepted the Respondent’s submission that even if fraud can invalidate at lodgement or later, the decisive assessment is at the time of the s 65(1) decision.
Knowledge and conscious continuation can defeat a fraud-based invalidity claim: The Court found the Applicants’ later awareness and instruction to a new agent to continue meant no operative fraud at the time of the delegate’s decision.
Reckless indifference is a high threshold: The judgment emphasised the distinction between reliance on an agent and reckless indifference, drawing on Gill and Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 269 FCR 464.
Court’s duty to unrepresented litigants shapes procedure, not outcomes: The Court’s approach to adjournment and evidence directions demonstrated fairness and process integrity, with reference to Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 and SZRUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2013) 216 FCR 445.

Legal Basis

The Court’s legal foundation rested on the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), particularly:

Section 65(1): The Minister’s obligation to grant or refuse a visa after considering a valid application, and the concept that validity is a jurisdictional fact.
Section 47(3): The Minister is not to consider an application that is not a valid application.
Sections 47, 48, 49: Operating as part of the legislative scheme that regulates when applications can be considered and how consequences flow.
Section 36: The substantive criteria for protection visas were relevant to the background but not the decisive judicial review question, because the Applicants ultimately conceded before the Tribunal that they did not meet the criteria.

The Court integrated the above with the fraud jurisprudence in:

Gill v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 248 FCR 398
Maharjan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 258 FCR 1
Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 269 FCR 464
Minister for Home Affairs v DUA16 (2020) 271 CLR 550
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Lu (2010) 189 FCR 525
SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 232 CLR 189

Evidence Chain

Victory Point 1: The case was won on timing, not on the morality of the original conduct.

Evidence: The Court accepted that at lodgement the Applicants were unaware, which is the strongest factual foundation for a fraud claim.
Turning link: The Court then found that before 5 May 2016 the Applicants became aware and chose to continue.
Resulting conclusion: The alleged fraud did not operate at decision time to make the application invalid for the purposes of s 65(1).

Victory Point 2: Contemporaneous documents anchored the Respondent’s position.

Evidence: An email from the later agent to the Department stating authorisation to act for the Applicants on the protection visa and enclosing Form 956.
Why it mattered: This is not a reconstructed memory; it is a document created in real time during the migration process.
Legal effect: It supported a finding of conscious continuation and undermined any claim that the Applicants treated the application as unauthorised up to decision time.

Victory Point 3: Cross-examination produced admissions aligning the narrative with the documents.

Evidence: The first Applicant accepted in cross-examination that interview communications about the protection application were transmitted by the later agent and that he was aware of the refusal.
Why it mattered: Admissions reduce interpretive ambiguity. They allow the Court to confidently connect knowledge with conduct.
Legal effect: Knowledge plus continuation was the hinge that removed operative stultification.

Victory Point 4: The Court drew a sharp distinction between “being misled at the start” and “adopting the process later”.

Evidence: The Applicants were upset and confronted the original agent, and they were told withdrawal was possible.
Why it mattered: The Court treated this as evidence that the Applicants had agency and choice once informed.
Legal effect: Continuing with the application once aware prevented the earlier misconduct from being determinative of validity at decision time.

Victory Point 5: The Court’s framework required “stultification” of statutory duties, not merely personal harm.

Evidence: The Applicants emphasised that their immigration status was affected and that other visas may have been pursued.
Why it mattered: That may describe consequence, but the legal test demanded a tighter causal and statutory connection.
Legal effect: Without operative stultification of ss 47 and 65 duties at the time of decision, the Court could not find jurisdictional error.

Victory Point 6: The Court’s assistance to a self-represented litigant strengthened procedural legitimacy and narrowed the issue.

Evidence: The Court explained adjournment practice and the need to adduce evidence, including what categories of evidence would matter.
Why it mattered: This prevented the case being decided on misunderstanding of procedure and created a clean record.
Legal effect: Once evidence was filed and tested, the Court could decide on a properly informed basis, reducing any later complaint of unfairness.

Victory Point 7: The Court adopted a process-based understanding of “application”.

Evidence: Reliance on Maharjan reasoning that an application includes supporting documents and statements up to decision time.
Why it mattered: It allowed the Court to treat later authorisation and continuation as part of the application’s legal character.
Legal effect: It reinforced why the Applicants’ later conduct mattered to validity under s 65(1).

Victory Point 8: The Court kept the inquiry within the Court’s constitutional and statutory role.

Evidence: The Court acknowledged its limits, focusing on jurisdictional fact and validity rather than merits of protection claims.
Why it mattered: Judicial review is about lawful authority and process integrity, not re-deciding protection claims.
Legal effect: By keeping the inquiry narrow, the Court applied the legal test precisely and avoided error.

Judicial Original Quotation

The Court’s core articulation of the fraud test and its boundaries is captured by the framework requiring both operative stultification and absence of complicity or reckless indifference.

“Further, to establish third party fraud an applicant must prove that: There was fraud, which in some way stultified the decision under s 65(1). That is, the applicant must show how the alleged fraud affected the processes by which the application for a protection visa came to be considered … and how the duties … in ss 47(1) and (2), 49 and 65(1) of the Act were stultified … and … the Applicants were not complicit or recklessly indifferent …”

Why this was determinative: The Court framed the inquiry as an interaction between dishonesty and the statutory scheme. The Applicants’ factual success on “unaware at lodgement” did not automatically satisfy “stultification at decision time”. The later evidence of awareness and conscious continuation meant that the statutory duties at the decision point were not stultified in the legally required way.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Applicants failed not because the Court rejected their early account, but because their own later conduct, and the documentary record, undermined the legal consequence they sought.

They could not prove operative fraud at the critical time.

The Court accepted that at lodgement they were unaware, but found that before the delegate’s s 65(1) decision they were aware and continued.
This meant the alleged fraud did not operate to prevent the delegate from considering a valid application at decision time.

Their narrative focused on consequences rather than statutory stultification.

Saying “we would have applied for other visas” may be true as a practical consequence, but the legal test required showing how fraud undermined statutory duties in ss 47 and 65 at the decision point.

The evidence chain ran against them on the decisive question of adoption.

The later agent’s involvement, the Form 956 authorisation, and the review steps supported a finding of conscious continuation.
This removed the legal force of their allegation that the whole process was “without knowledge” at the time that mattered.

The case demonstrates the risk of delay in clarifying a migration pathway.

Once a protection visa application exists, later choices about whether to withdraw, continue, attend interviews, or pursue review steps can materially affect how a court evaluates claims of agent fraud.

Implications

Fraud is not a magic word: it must connect to the statute.

If you allege fraud in a migration judicial review, the Court will usually require you to show exactly how the dishonesty disrupted the statutory machinery. The emotional truth of being misled can coexist with a legal conclusion that the statutory scheme still operated lawfully at the time of decision.

Timing can decide the whole case.

Many people assume that if something began wrongly, everything after it must fall. This judgment shows the opposite can be true. If you become aware of the problem and choose to keep going, the Court may treat your later choice as changing the legal character of the process.

Documents outvote memory.

Courts tend to give significant weight to contemporaneous documents, especially authorisations and communications with the Department and Tribunal. If you later say you never authorised the process, but a Form 956 and emails show you appointed an agent and continued, the documents will likely carry heavy persuasive force.

Being unrepresented is not fatal, but evidence is essential.

The Court may explain procedure and offer a fair chance to file proper evidence. Yet the Court cannot invent evidence for you. If your claim depends on fraud, you need a clear evidentiary story: what you asked for, what you signed, what you were told, what you understood, and what you did once you discovered the truth.

The safest mindset is early legal clarity.

If you suspect an application has been lodged wrongly, taking early steps to clarify what has been filed, what can be withdrawn, and what consequences attach can reduce risk. Legal systems reward timely, documented decisions. Waiting, hoping, or relying on assumptions tends to increase vulnerability.

Q&A Session

Q1: If an agent lodged the wrong visa without my knowledge, does that automatically make the application invalid?

A1: Not automatically. The Court’s approach in this case shows that you generally need to prove actual dishonesty and show that it stultified the statutory decision-making duties at the time the decision was made. If you later became aware and continued with the application, that may weaken an invalidity argument, depending on the evidence and timing.

Q2: Why did it matter that the Applicants later appointed a new agent for the protection application?

A2: Because it supported a finding that the Applicants consciously chose to continue the protection visa process once they knew it existed. The Court treated validity as assessed at the time of decision under s 65(1). Later authorisation and continuation can mean the earlier fraud no longer operates to invalidate the application at decision time.

Q3: What kind of evidence is usually needed to prove migration agent fraud in judicial review?

A3: Evidence typically includes engagement records, invoices and receipts, written advice, text messages and emails, documents you signed, what information you provided, what you were told about the visa type, and what steps you took once you discovered the alleged problem. Courts also often treat contemporaneous documents lodged with the Department, such as authority forms and agent correspondence, as highly influential.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Migration judicial review, third-party fraud allegation against a migration agent, validity of protection visa application, jurisdictional fact analysis under Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

This section provides structured reference standards only. Outcomes tend to depend on evidence quality, timing, and how the statutory scheme applies to the specific facts.

Core Test Standard: Judicial Review in Migration Matters

Step 1: Identify the decision under review and the lawful source of power.

Confirm the decision-maker and decision: delegate refusal under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 65(1), and Tribunal affirmation.
Confirm the Court’s role: judicial review focuses on lawful authority and jurisdictional error, not merits re-determination.

Step 2: Identify the precise jurisdictional fact or legal limit said to be breached.

In this case, the asserted jurisdictional fact was whether there was “a valid application” for the purposes of s 65(1).
Section 47(3) provides that the Minister is not to consider an application that is not a valid application.
The review question becomes: did the alleged fraud cause the decision-maker to perform statutory duties in a way that the Act did not authorise?

Step 3: Prove the factual foundation with admissible evidence.

Who was the agent, how were they engaged, what was asked of them, what documents were completed, and what was said in communications.
What was filed and when.
Whether the Applicant was aware, and if aware, what steps were taken: withdrawal, correction, continuation, appointment of a new agent, attendance at interviews.

Step 4: Establish operative fraud, not mere poor service.

The Court’s framework requires actual dishonesty that affects the statutory scheme, rather than carelessness, incompetence, or misunderstanding.
The evidence should specify what was fraudulent, how it was fraudulent, and how it was acted upon in the statutory process, consistent with guidance drawn from SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 232 CLR 189 and Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 269 FCR 464.

Step 5: Demonstrate stultification of statutory duties at the legally critical time.

The Applicant must show how the fraud affected the processes by which the application came to be considered and how duties in ss 47, 49, and 65(1) were stultified.
Timing is central: courts tend to assess whether the fraud remained operative at the time of the decision under s 65(1).

Step 6: Address complicity and reckless indifference.

The Applicant should be able to show they were not complicit and not recklessly indifferent.
Courts distinguish reckless indifference from reliance, naivety, fear of authority, dependence, and lack of due care, consistent with Gill v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 248 FCR 398 and Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 269 FCR 464.

Core Test Standard: Protection Visa Substantive Context

Although not determinative in this case, understanding the protection visa framework helps contextualise why false claims are serious.

Step 1: Identify whether the person meets Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 36 criteria.

The Tribunal found the first Applicant did not satisfy s 36(2)(a) or (aa) because there was no evidence supporting fear of serious or significant harm.

Step 2: Consider credibility and consistency risks.

False or retracted claims can affect credibility assessments in protection proceedings.
Even where judicial review is not a merits review, credibility history often shapes how evidence is viewed across a procedural timeline.

Core Test Standard: Public Interest Criteria and Character Tests as Broader Migration Risk Indicators

These standards may become relevant in other migration contexts. They are included here as reference only and may not apply to every matter.

Public Interest Criterion 4020:

Has the Applicant provided bogus documents or information that is false or misleading in a material particular?
If so, refusal risk tends to increase, subject to the particular instrument and discretion structure.

Section 501 Character Test:

Does the person fail the character test, including by having a substantial criminal record or other relevant factors?
If enlivened, discretion, representations, and protective factors may become crucial.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

This section outlines alternative legal pathways that may be relevant when a primary statutory route is unavailable. These are reference concepts only and tend to require careful tailoring to facts.

Procedural Fairness

In migration and administrative decision-making, procedural fairness is often central to judicial review.

Key inquiries:

Was the person given a meaningful opportunity to be heard on adverse material?
Was there an apprehension of bias?
Were critical issues put to the person in a way that allowed response?

Practical relevance:

Where an application is said to be unauthorised, the person may attempt to argue that the process denied them a real chance to present their true case.
However, as this judgment illustrates, later knowledge and continuation can weaken a contention that the statutory process was fundamentally denied.

Ancillary Claims and Reframing

Where a fraud allegation cannot establish invalidity at decision time, alternative reframings can sometimes be considered:

If the core injustice is professional misconduct by an agent, complaint and disciplinary pathways under the migration agent regulatory regime may be relevant.
Civil claims may sometimes be considered in appropriate jurisdictions, such as misleading conduct or negligence, though success tends to depend on proof and causation, and remedies may not undo migration statutory consequences.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

This section highlights “hard thresholds” that often apply in practice, and the kinds of exceptional channels that sometimes exist. These are general reference indicators only and can vary by statute, court rules, and transitional provisions.

Regular Thresholds

Strict time limits often apply to commencing judicial review proceedings in migration matters.
Courts commonly require compliance with filing and service requirements, and delay can create significant risk, especially if extension mechanisms are limited.
In protection visa contexts, the statutory scheme often imposes barriers on repeat applications, and strategic decisions about withdrawal or continuation can have lasting effect.

Exceptional Channels

Where procedural fairness is denied in a way that rises to jurisdictional error, relief may be available even if merits are weak.
Where there is proven fraud that is operative at the decision point and stultifies statutory duties, courts may grant declaratory relief affecting how statutory consequences operate, including in relation to provisions analogous to s 48 consequences, as illustrated in authorities such as Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 247 FCR 554.

Suggestion:

Do not abandon a potential claim simply because the situation feels complex. Carefully compare your circumstances against statutory exceptions and judicial review grounds, because the decisive pathway often lies in timing, proof, and how the statutory scheme is engaged.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle:

It is recommended to cite this case in submissions involving:

The validity of visa applications as a jurisdictional fact under Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 65(1)
The legal framework for third-party fraud by migration agents and the requirement that fraud stultify the statutory decision-making process
The significance of timing, later knowledge, and conscious continuation in evaluating whether fraud remains operative at decision time
Case management standards where an applicant is unrepresented, including adjournment practice and evidence directions

Citation Method:

As Positive Support:

Where your matter involves alleged third-party fraud by an agent, and the question is whether the fraud was operative at the time of decision, this authority can support the proposition that validity is assessed at decision time and requires proof of stultification of statutory duties.
Where your matter involves a self-represented litigant, this authority can support a structured explanation of how courts balance assistance with fairness to the other party.

As a Distinguishing Reference:

If an opposing party cites this authority, you may distinguish it by pointing to differences in timing and conduct. For example, if your case involves discovery of fraud only after the delegate’s decision, or immediate withdrawal steps once discovered, you may argue that conscious continuation was not present, and the operative effect analysis differs.

Anonymisation Rule:

Do not use real names of parties. Use procedural titles such as Applicant and Respondent.

Conclusion

This judgment stands as a clear reminder that in migration judicial review, the legal question is rarely whether something feels unfair in the abstract. The question is whether the unfairness can be proven in evidence and mapped onto the statutory scheme at the legally critical time.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (BJK19 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 5), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.