Ban Shammas, an Iraqi refugee, claimed a CIT lecturer had racially discriminated against her.

But the CIT asked the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal to dismiss the application as frivolous and vexatious.

A decision, published this week, said Ms Shammas originally complained to the ACT Human Rights Commission but the matter was then referred to the ACAT after the watchdog found the grievance lacked substance.

It is the second time Ms Shammas has brought discrimination proceedings against the CIT in the ACAT.

The case stemmed from Ms Shammas' belief that ASIO had bugged her home and colluded with CIT.

She lost the original case in 2012 and, in the fresh matter, claimed her lecturer, acting on information from ASIO, had tried to impede the appeal she intended to lodge.

Ms Shammas said the lecturer created oppressive and suppressive circumstances in order "to stress, intimidate and affect her psychologically to give up and/or discontinue appealing against the decision".

She sought damages, alleging the conduct was racial discrimination and constituted victimisation.

But CIT's lawyers filed an application to have the case thrown out. They argued that the evidence did not substantiate the claims and therefore the case was doomed to fail.

The tribunal published its decision on Wednesday, having originally reserved its judgment in December.

ACAT presidential member Elizabeth Symons threw out Ms Shammas' application.

"It was immediately apparent to the tribunal that fundamental to [Ms Shammas'] claim was her belief that ASIO was bugging her home and co-operating with the CIT by sharing [her] private information," Ms Symons wrote.

"She alleged that the CIT used this information to discriminate and victimise her.

"The tribunal is satisfied, having considered all of the material … that the applicant has not presented any objective evidence to suggest that [she] was treated unfavourably, or subjected to any objective detriment, by the [CIT].

"The tribunal agrees with [CIT's] submissions that [Ms Shammas] will not be able to provide objective evidence to support her allegations concerning ASIO."

But Ms Symons did not believe the application had been vexatious, finding Ms Shammas genuinely believed that she had been subject to unfavourable treatment.

"Accordingly, the tribunal is satisfied that her application was not designed to harass or annoy the respondent."