Sajjad v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC2G 558

Procedural Context & Factual Background

Sajjad v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC2G 558 is a reported public administrative law authority determined in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) exercising federal judicial review jurisdiction under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

The applicant faced urgent mandatory cancellation of his visa and imminent executive removal from the Commonwealth of Australia following an adverse delegate determination. Retained as Solicitor on Record for the applicant, Kashif Sultan initiated emergency proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, immediately applying for urgent interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain the Minister and executive officers from removing the applicant from the jurisdiction pending substantive hearing.

Following an urgent contested hearing, the Court granted the interlocutory injunction, maintaining the status quo and preserving the applicant’s presence within Australia. The matter subsequently progressed to a full hearing on the merits, addressing whether the administrative decision-maker had fallen into jurisdictional error by failing to consider integer claims and denying procedural fairness.

Core Legal & Jurisdictional Questions

The judicial review application raised foundational questions of Commonwealth administrative law, curial review standards, and statutory construction:

1. Threshold for Emergency Interlocutory Injunctions Against the Executive: The evidentiary and legal test governing interlocutory orders restraining executive removal under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), establishing a prima facie case of jurisdictional error and demonstrating that the balance of convenience decisively favored injunctive protection.
2. Jurisdictional Error through Failure to Consider Substantial Representations: Whether the administrative decision-maker failed to engage in an active intellectual process regarding central claims and representations made under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), breaching the implied statutory obligation of procedural fairness and legal reasonableness.
3. Availability of Prerogative Relief (Certiorari & Mandamus): Establishing the grounds warranting the constitutional writ of certiorari to quash the administrative decision and mandamus directing remittal for redetermination according to law.
4. Appellate Curial Governance: The preservation of curial rights and ongoing statutory review pending the Minister’s subsequent appeal to the Federal Court of Australia in matter NSD765 of 2026.

Substantive Findings & Evidentiary Analysis

The evidentiary and legal submissions prepared and filed by Sultan Legal as Solicitor on Record focused on the administrative record of decision-making, demonstrating a manifest failure of procedural justice:

• Urgent Interlocutory Motion: At the interlocutory stage, submissions demonstrated that immediate removal would render any ultimate judicial vindication nugatory, creating irreversible prejudice. The Court accepted that the applicant had established a serious question to be tried regarding the legality of the administrative decision, ordering injunctive protection.
• Deconstruction of the Administrative Record: At the substantive hearing, a forensic review of the delegate’s statement of reasons revealed that corroborating materials and critical factual integers advanced by the applicant were neither mentioned nor evaluated.
• Finding of Jurisdictional Error: The Court upheld the applicant’s submissions, determining that the decision-maker had engaged in jurisdictional error by failing to discharge the statutory task required by Parliament. The decision was infected by legal unreasonableness and a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction.

Arbitral Determination & Strategic Precedent

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia entered final judgment for the applicant:

1. Constitutional Writs Issued: The Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the administrative delegate and a writ of mandamus remitting the matter to the executive for determination according to law.
2. Costs Order: The Court ordered the Minister to pay the applicant’s legal costs of the application, including the costs of the emergency interlocutory injunction hearing.
3. Appellate Reservation: The Minister has lodged an appeal against the determination in the Federal Court of Australia (NSD765 of 2026), where proceedings remain active under appellate judicial supervision.

The authority establishes a key administrative law precedent on the necessity of active intellectual engagement by statutory decision-makers and the vital role of swift curial intervention through prerogative relief to restrain unlawful executive action.