I applied for protection visa (Class XA Sub class 866) which was rejected, its decision was appealed with review Tribunal who also rejected the case. I believed the tribunals decision inherited jurisdictional error therefore I appealed this decision in FCCA. After the appeal I had to leave Australia due to family emergency, missed the appeal directional hearing. Re-appealed to FCCA to review the reinstatement of the case and review of original decision from Tribunal. The court is satisfied with the reasons forcing me to leave Australia but the respondent (AAT) argues that because protection visa can only be issued to a person onshore (In Australia), the applicant being overseas would not be eligible for this visa, therefore, this appeal should not be allowed because even if it were allowed the applicant could not be awarded the visa anyways.
I think it is due to the error in judgement from AAT that caused delays in processing of my application. I was eligible for the visa till the appeal in FCCA and it should not matter if I am eligible at the current moment, because appropriately if the court finds the presence of jurisdictional error then AAT was wrong on refusing my visa and I would be eligible for the visa at that point in time (retrospectively speaking). and its only due to the error in judgement of AAT that has indirectly caused me to be in breach of the condition as this would not have happened if they had provided me the visa in the first place when I was rightfully eligible for it.
I guess the question I want to ask is; Is there any case law I could refer, or if there is anything I can argue with the FCCA, that would explain how breaching an original condition after the appeal should not matter as the delay in decisions has caused the subsequent ineligibility?
It would be of great help if someone could advice me on the matter, I would get a paid legal counsel if it wasn't for the fact that I have been ripped off in the past by a lot of immigration agents and I do not have enough money at the moment to hire one.