Abstract: In December 2025, as the new Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) system matures, a wave of unsuccessful applicants is flocking to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) for a last-ditch effort. However, the latest judicial statistics show that the success rate for immigration judicial reviews has dropped to historical lows. This article provides an in-depth analysis of how the Federal Court is redefining 'Legal Unreasonableness' in 2025, why 're-weighing facts' is strictly off-limits, and the risks of substantial litigation costs following a loss.
December 6, 2025 — For many visa applicants who have received an "Affirm" decision from the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), filing a lawsuit in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) is often the last lawful means to remain in the country.
However, the judicial environment in 2025 is no longer lenient. With the Administrative Review Act 2024 endowing the ART with more rigorous legal procedures and a more professional team of members, the number of low-level procedural errors committed by the ART has significantly decreased. This has directly caused the difficulty of overturning ART decisions in the Federal Court to rise exponentially.
The Immigix Legal Team observes from the courtroom frontlines that judges are clearing out "delay-tactic litigation" lacking legal merit with high efficiency. For applicants, understanding the boundaries of the Court's function has become the key to avoiding a double disaster—both financial and legal.
This remains the most confusing concept for the vast majority of applicants in 2025: The difference between Merits Review and Judicial Review.
In the Federal Court, your only chance of winning is to prove that the ART committed a "Jurisdictional Error."
Because ART procedures have become more standardized, traditional "Procedural Fairness" grounds (e.g., the ART forgot to send a hearing invitation) are becoming increasingly rare. In 2025, lawyers are concentrating their defensive firepower on the much more difficult ground of "Legal Unreasonableness."
What is "Legal Unreasonableness"?
This does not mean the ART's decision was "unreasonable" in a lay sense, but that the decision was "so lacking in logic and rationality that no rational decision-maker could have reached it."
2025 Precedent Trends:
Several landmark judgments this year (such as the fallout from Minister v XYZ [2025] HCA) indicate that the Court has significantly raised this threshold:
In short, as long as the ART's decision falls within the "bounds of rationality"—even if it is the harshest possible outcome within those bounds—the Court will uphold it.
In 2025, to curb the abuse of judicial resources, the Federal Court has become much more resolute in enforcing Cost Orders against losing parties.
More alarmingly, if the Court determines that the litigation was "Hopeless" or brought purely to delay removal, it may award Indemnity Costs, which are significantly higher, and may refer the representative lawyer for professional conduct sanctions.
Despite the extremely high threshold, there are still specific types of errors in 2025 that the Court will rigorously correct. The Immigix team summarizes several avenues with relatively higher success rates:
Did the ART, when citing legal provisions, set an extra threshold for itself that the law does not require? Or did it incorrectly understand the legal definition of "family violence" or "compelling reasons"? This is a hardcore legal error.
Especially in Protection Visa (Refugee) cases, if an applicant raised three distinct grounds for persecution and the ART only analyzed two, completely missing the third, this constitutes a jurisdictional error. Note that the ART must address "substantive" claims, not every trivial detail.
Although difficult to prove, with the digitization of ART hearing recordings, if it can be demonstrated that the Member displayed a clear pre-judgment, aggression, or not just questioning but "humiliation" of the applicant during the hearing, the Court may find that bias existed.
The Federal Court is not only a hall of justice but also a meat grinder of time and money. In the era of 2025, where judicial resources are critically strained, the Court no longer tolerates a "let's just try" mentality.
For applicants who have failed at the ART, Immigix offers the most sincere advice:
Do not appeal blindly. Before filing an application, you must engage a lawyer or Barrister specializing in administrative law litigation to review the ART's Decision Record. Only when a professional has found a confirmed "Jurisdictional Error" under the microscope is an appeal a wise move.
Otherwise, rather than spending a fortune on a doomed lawsuit and burdening yourself with government debt, it is better to cut your losses in time, find other lawful immigration pathways, or arrange for departure. The law protects rights, but it also punishes blindness.