The Invisible Wall: How the Materiality Threshold Defeats Even Strong Judicial Review Cases
If you've made it this far in the series, through the privative clause, the Craig framework, Hossain, SZMTA, and MZAPC — congratulations. You now know more about the materiality threshold than most people who aren't immigration lawyers. Seriously.
But here's the thing: understanding the threshold in theory is one thing. Seeing it operate in practice, watching it defeat case after case where the legal error was real, the argument was sound, and the lawyers were experienced, is something else entirely.
That's what Part 4 is about. We're going to walk through real cases where people challenged visa decisions in court, where the decision-maker had genuinely gotten it wrong, and where the court said: "Yes, there was an error. But it wasn't material. Application dismissed."
And then, because this isn't a completely hopeless story, we'll look at cases where the materiality threshold was cleared. Cases that succeeded. Because the threshold is demanding, but it's not impossible.
A 30-Second Refresher
If you've read Parts 1 through 3, you know the rule. If you haven't, here's the short version:
To win a judicial review case in Australian immigration law, it's not enough to show the decision-maker made an error. You also have to show the error was material, meaning a different decision could realistically have been made if the error hadn't occurred.
The question isn't whether the decision would have been different. It's whether it could realistically have been different. That sounds like a low bar. As we're about to see, it often isn't.
Case 1: The Partner Visa That Started It All
Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 34
This is the case that launched the modern materiality threshold, so it's the right place to start.
The Appellant was a Bangladeshi citizen who applied for a partner visa. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) refused his application, finding he didn't meet two separate criteria. One was a timing requirement about when he'd applied. The other was that he had outstanding debts to the Commonwealth.
Here's where it gets interesting. The Tribunal got the timing criterion wrong. It assessed it as at the date of the visa application, when it should have assessed it at the date of the Tribunal's own decision. The Minister actually conceded this was an error.
So, the Appellant had the government admitting the Tribunal had made a legal mistake. He had barristers running the case through the Federal Circuit Court, the Full Federal Court, and ultimately the High Court.
And he lost. All the way.
Why? Because of the second criterion, the debt. The Appellant still owed money to the Commonwealth at the time the Tribunal made its decision. Even if the Tribunal had correctly assessed the timing criterion, it still would have refused the visa because of the unpaid debt.
The High Court used this case to establish the principle: an error won't be jurisdictional if complying with the breached condition could have made no difference to the decision.
What the Appellant would have needed: Evidence that the debt had been paid or that the Tribunal would have exercised discretion differently on that second criterion. Because the debt was still outstanding, the error on the first criterion was a dead letter.
The lesson: If your case was refused on two independent grounds and only one of them was wrong, the materiality threshold will almost certainly defeat you. The court will say: even without the error, the other ground still would have sunk the application.
Case 2: The Protection Visa and the Secret Documents
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3
This one is about procedural fairness — specifically, what happens when the decision-maker has documents they shouldn't have kept from you, but the court decides it didn't matter.
SZMTA was seeking a protection visa. During the Tribunal hearing, the Department had notified the Tribunal that section 438 of the Migration Act applied to certain documents — essentially telling the Tribunal to be careful about whether to disclose particular information to the applicant. This notification was invalid, and the Tribunal shouldn't have received it.
The problem? The notification should have been disclosed to the applicant, and it wasn't. Everyone agreed that was a breach of procedural fairness. The Minister conceded it. Clear error. Done.
But the High Court (by a 3-2 majority) said the breach wasn't material. The key evidence showed that the documents covered by the notification had already been provided to SZMTA through a freedom of information request. He already had them. The Tribunal hadn't actually relied on them in its decision. And there was nothing in the decision suggesting the undisclosed notification had influenced the outcome.
What the Appellant would have needed: Evidence that the Tribunal actually took the secret notification into account when making its decision — or evidence that the undisclosed material, if put before the applicant, would have prompted evidence or submissions that could have changed the outcome.
The lesson: Even a conceded breach of procedural fairness can be defeated by the materiality threshold if you can't show the breach actually mattered to the decision. The court won't set aside a decision just because the process was unfair in the abstract — you have to connect the unfairness to the result.
Case 3: The Student Who Couldn't Prove the Tribunal Read the File
MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17
MZAPC was an Indian citizen who arrived in Australia on a student visa. After various visa difficulties, he ended up applying for a protection visa, claiming he faced persecution in India.
During the Refugee Review Tribunal's handling of his case, the same section 438 notification problem arose — the Department had flagged certain documents (including a police court outcomes report showing some criminal convictions), and the Tribunal hadn't told the applicant about them.
Again, the Minister conceded the procedural fairness breach. Again, the question was materiality.
This case went to a seven-member bench of the High Court — the biggest panel possible. By a slim 4-3 majority, the Court said the breach was immaterial. The reasoning? There was no evidence that the Tribunal had actually looked at or relied upon the undisclosed documents. The Tribunal's decision turned entirely on its assessment of MZAPC's claims about persecution in India, and the criminal history report didn't appear to have played any role in that assessment.
Here's the catch: MZAPC bore the onus of proving materiality, and he couldn't show on the balance of probabilities that the Tribunal had even opened the file containing the undisclosed material.
What the Appellant would have needed: Evidence — perhaps from the Tribunal's reasons, or from the hearing transcript — showing that the Tribunal had actually considered the undisclosed material, or that the material related to a topic that was central to the Tribunal's reasoning (like credibility).
The lesson: The Appellant carries the burden. You don't just need to show an error happened — you need to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the error fed into the decision-making process. If the decision-maker made the error, but it sat in a drawer and was never looked at, you'll lose.
Case 4: The Character Case That Took Four Courts to Win
Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26
This case deserves to be told as two stories, because it's both a failure story and a success story, depending on which court you're looking at.
The Appellant was a New Zealand citizen whose visa was mandatorily cancelled after he was convicted of serious offences — including an unprovoked attack on an elderly man and a high-speed police pursuit. A delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation.
The Appellant then went to the AAT. Between the delegate's decision and the Tribunal hearing, the rules had changed. Ministerial Direction 65 had been replaced by Direction 79, which added an important new consideration: crimes of a violent nature against women or children were to be viewed "very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed."
At the hearing, the AAT member told the Appellant (who was self-represented) that the changes between the two Directions were "minor" and of "minor relevance" to his case. But then the Minister's solicitor cross-examined the Appellant about two police reports of family violence — and the Tribunal relied heavily on those reports when refusing to revoke the cancellation.
In other words, the Tribunal told the Appellant the domestic violence issue wasn't important, didn't give him a proper chance to address it, and then used it against him. Everyone — including the Minister — agreed that was a denial of procedural fairness.
But at the Federal Court, the judge said the breach wasn't material. The Appellant hadn't shown what he could have said that would have changed the outcome. The Full Federal Court agreed, 2-1. Two levels of experienced Federal Court judges looked at this case and said: error, yes; material, no.
Now here's where it turns. The Appellant appealed to the High Court, and the High Court unanimously reversed the lower courts. All six available justices found the breach was material.
The plurality said that in most cases where someone is denied the chance to make submissions on a relevant topic, there will "generally" be a realistic possibility of a different outcome. The standard of "reasonable conjecture" is "undemanding." The Appellant didn't need to spell out exactly what evidence he and his wife would have given — it was enough that they could have provided context, detail, or mitigation that might have changed how the Tribunal viewed the domestic violence issue.
Justice Edelman went further, describing the onus of proving materiality in procedural fairness cases as requiring "almost nothing."
The lesson (for the lower courts): They applied materiality too strictly. The High Court corrected them.
The lesson (for everyone): Don't give up if the Federal Court or the Full Court says your error wasn't material, especially in procedural fairness cases. The High Court has made clear that the threshold is not demanding, even if some lower courts apply it as though it is.
Case 5: The Tribunal That Ignored the Rules
LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12
LPDT was a Vietnamese national who arrived in Australia in 1997 and was convicted of various criminal offences between 2011 and 2017. His visa was mandatorily cancelled, and the Tribunal upheld the decision not to revoke the cancellation.
The problem was that the Tribunal had failed to comply properly with Ministerial Direction 90 — the binding set of rules on how to weigh the various considerations when deciding whether to revoke a character-based visa cancellation. The Tribunal had gone through the motions, but its reasoning didn't follow the structured evaluative process the Direction required.
At first instance, the Federal Court found no error. The Full Federal Court agreed — no jurisdictional error. Two levels of court reviewed the Tribunal's reasoning and found nothing wrong.
The High Court unanimously disagreed. And in doing so, it delivered its most important guidance on materiality to date.
The Court found the Tribunal's failures to comply with Direction 90 were all aspects of a single error: a breach of section 499(2A) of the Migration Act. And that error was material because each failure affected the Tribunal's evaluation of the competing considerations. If the Tribunal had reasoned correctly, the weighing exercise could realistically have come out differently.
Most importantly, the Court set out its "practical guidance" on materiality in eight clear paragraphs — intended to replace all the divergent approaches from earlier cases. The key points:
An error is material if the decision could realistically have been different, not would have been.
The threshold is not demanding or onerous.
Some errors (such as bias or unreasonableness) are always material, without requiring further proof.
Courts must be careful not to cross the line into merits review when assessing materiality.
The lesson: LPDT is now the definitive statement on how materiality works. If you're running a judicial review case in 2025 or beyond, this is the case your lawyers need to know inside out.
Case 6: The Daughter Who Was Never Heard
Holloway v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 945
The Applicant’s visa was cancelled on character grounds. During the AAT hearing, he suggested that the Tribunal contact his 15-year-old daughter to give evidence about the impact on her and her younger sister.
The Tribunal thought it had no power to do this. It was wrong — the Tribunal absolutely had the power to seek evidence from the daughter. This was a clear legal error.
The Minister argued the error wasn't material — after all, the daughter would probably have said much the same things her father had already said.
The Federal Court rejected that argument. The judge acknowledged that the factual content of what the daughter might have said wasn't dramatically different from her father's evidence. But — and this is key — hearing directly from an affected child about the impact on her and her younger sibling was qualitatively different from hearing her father relay it. The evidence could have shifted how much weight the Tribunal placed on the best interests of the children, and the Tribunal's decision wasn't so emphatic on any single factor that this shift was unrealistic.
The lesson: Don't assume materiality is limited to cases where the missing evidence is dramatically different. Even when the substance is similar, a different source of evidence — especially a vulnerable person speaking for themselves — can be material because of the weight it might carry.
What These Cases Teach Us
If you're reading this because you've received an adverse visa decision and you're thinking about judicial review, here's what you need to take away:
Finding an error isn't enough. Your lawyers can find the clearest legal error in the world, and you can still lose if you can't show the error mattered. That's what Hossain, SZMTA, and MZAPC all demonstrate.
But the threshold isn't as high as some courts have applied it. The High Court has repeatedly corrected lower courts for applying materiality too strictly — most notably in Nathanson and LPDT. The standard is "reasonable conjecture," not mathematical proof.
The type of error matters. Procedural fairness breaches — where you were denied a chance to be heard on something — tend to be easier to prove as material. Bias and unreasonableness are automatically material. But a technical breach that didn't affect the reasoning? Much harder.
You need a plan for materiality from the start. The best immigration lawyers don't just identify errors — they build the materiality argument into the case from day one. What would the decision-maker have done differently? What evidence would have been before them? How does the error connect to the outcome?
The Full Series:
Part 2: The 2018 Case That Changed Everything: How the High Court Raised the Bar for Judicial Review
Part 4 (you are here): Why Even Strong Cases Fail: The Materiality Threshold in Practice
How Can Agape Henry Crux Help
If you've followed this four-part series from the beginning, you've covered an extraordinary amount of ground. You've learned why the Department has so much power, how judicial review works, how the materiality threshold was created and expanded, and now, how it plays out in real cases.
Here's the practical reality: the materiality threshold is real, it's demanding, and it defeats many judicial review applications. But it's not impossible. The cases that succeed are the ones where the legal team not only identifies the error but also builds a compelling narrative about why the error mattered and why the decision could realistically have been different.
That takes experience, strategic thinking, and an honest assessment of the case from the outset. Not every error is worth taking to court. But some are — and the ones that are need to be run properly.
If any of the following situations apply to you, you may have a judicial review case worth exploring:
Your visa was refused, and the refusal letter says it is not merit reviewable
Your visa was cancelled, and the cancellation notice says it is not merit reviewable
You missed the deadline to lodge with the ART
The Minister made the decision personally (s 501, s 501A, s 501BA)
The Department or Tribunal made a clear legal error, and you want it corrected without waiting years for merits review
You went through the Tribunal and lost, and you believe the Tribunal made a legal error
At Agape Henry Crux, our Accredited Specialists in Immigration Law can assess whether the error in your case is one that clears the materiality threshold. You can schedule an appointment with one of our lawyers, Jason Ling or Angela De Silva, to seek professional advice by calling 02-8310 5230 or emailing us at info@ahclawyers.com.
We speak fluent English and Mandarin. We can also help you arrange an interpreter if this isn't your language.
Our founder and principal lawyer, Jason Ling, has been recognised in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in Australia™. Agape Henry Crux is named as Best Immigration Law Firm 2025 - Sydney by APAC Insider Awards.
This article/presentation (“publication”) does not deal extensively with important topics or changes in law and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice that may be relevant to the reader's specific circumstances. If you find this publication of interest and would like to know more or wish to obtain legal advice relevant to your circumstances, please contact our office.
Client Testimonials
….we call it Support Network
As navigating through the immigration law process may be difficult, our former clients have agreed to share their experiences through telephone chats, emails and meetings in person.
These are their stories…
