Baig v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2025] FedCFamC2G 272
•27 March 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Baig v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 272
File number(s): SYG 1563 of 2021 Judgment of: JUDGE ZIPSER Date of judgment: 27 March 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant student visa – whether error in Tribunal’s finding that applicant did not satisfy genuine temporary entrant criterion - whether two contradictory statements in Tribunal decision involved jurisdictional error – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth)ss 65, 357A, 359, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cls 500.212, 500.311 of Schedule 2
Cases cited: Acuna Plaza v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 424; 164 ALD 258
Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184
EQV20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1252
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; 206 CLR 323
SZLPH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 744
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 60 Date of hearing: 25 February 2025 Place: Parramatta Applicants: Applicant in person Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr M. Gao of HWL Ebsworth ORDERS
SYG 1563 of 2021 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: ZEESHAN BAIG
First Applicant
IQRA TABASSUM
Second Applicant
ZAYAN AHMED BAIG
Third Applicant
SUBHAN AHMED BAIG
Fourth Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE ZIPSER
DATE OF ORDER:
27 MARCH 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent is amended to “Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs”.
2.The application is dismissed.
3.The first and second applicants pay the first respondent’s costs in the amount of $5,600.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE ZIPSER
INTRODUCTION
On 17 August 2021, the applicants filed an application, under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 15 July 2021. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s 65 of the Act.
For the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The applicants are citizens of Pakistan. The first applicant (Applicant) first arrived in Australia on 25 September 2008 as the holder of a student visa. The second applicant is the wife of the Applicant. The third and fourth applicants are children of the Applicant and his wife.
On 5 December 2018, the Applicant applied for a student visa to study a Graduate Diploma of Management. The second, third and fourth applicants were included in the application as members of the family unit.
On 18 February 2019, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the visas. The delegate found that the Applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant and therefore did not satisfy cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Schedule 2).
On 6 March 2019, the applicants applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.
On 31 May 2021, the Tribunal invited the applicants to provide information pursuant s 359 of the Act. The applicants provided the requested information via the Tribunal's “Request for Student Visa Information” form and attached supporting evidence.
On 28 June 2021, the Tribunal invited the applicants to attend a hearing on 14 July 2021 to give evidence and present arguments.
On 12 July 2021, the applicants' representative provided further supporting material to the Tribunal, including a written submission dated 8 July 2021.
On 14 July 2021, the Applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal.
On 15 July 2021, the Tribunal made a decision affirming the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicants student visas.
TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
Clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 provided:
The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:
(a)the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
(i) the applicant’s circumstances; and
(ii) the applicant’s immigration history; and
(iii)if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
(iv)any other relevant matter; and
(b)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:
(i)the applicant’s record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and
(ii) the applicant’s stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and
(c) of any other relevant matter.
The Tribunal noted that the issue before it was whether it was satisfied that the Applicant “intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily” within the meaning of cl 500.212(a). The Tribunal also noted that, in considering whether the applicant satisfied cl 500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction 69, “Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications” (Direction 69) which required the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:
(a)the applicant’s circumstances in their home country;
(b)the applicant's potential circumstances in Australia;
(c)the value of the course to the applicant’s future; and
(d)the applicant's immigration history.
In relation to the Applicant’s circumstances in his home country, potential circumstances in Australia and the value of the course to the Applicant’s future:
(a)The Tribunal found at [18] that “the applicant may have been using the student visa program to maintain residence”.
(b)The Tribunal found at [20] that “any remaining study the applicant has in his leadership and management courses is not likely to make a significant difference to his future career”.
(c)The Tribunal found at [22] that “the applicant has cultivated a satisfactory life and established strong ties to the Australian community acting as a strong incentive for him to remain onshore”.
(d)The Tribunal found at [25] that, although the Applicant has personal ties in Pakistan in the form of family acting as an incentive for him to return, the Tribunal “does not consider the evidence supports a conclusion that those ties are acting as a significant incentive for him to return particularly given he has not visited Pakistan since 2013 and has been offshore now for nearly thirteen years”.
(e)The Tribunal found at [27] that “the applicants’ economic circumstances onshore may be acting as a significant incentive for them to remain onshore”.
The Tribunal concluded at [29]-[31] that “the factors falling against the applicant in relation to whether he is a genuine student and whether he is a genuine temporary entrant have outweighed those falling in his favour”, the Applicant appeared to be using the student visa program as a means of maintaining residence in Australia”, and the Tribunal was “not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily”. As such, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not satisfy cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 and the other applicants did not satisfy cl 500.311.
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT
Judicial review application and procedural orders
On 17 August 2021, the applicants filed an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The application was prepared by a lawyer (Applicants’ Lawyer).
On 9 September 2021, a registrar made procedural orders, including that:
(a)the applicants file and serve any amended application before 2 December 2021; and
(b)upon a hearing date being fixed, the applicants file and serve a written submission 28 days before the hearing.
Following a period of inactivity, on 12 December 2024 the parties were notified that the matter was listed for hearing on 25 February 2025.
On 29 January 2025, the Applicants’ Lawyer filed a notice of withdrawal as lawyer.
On 2 February 2025, the applicants filed an amended application (Amended Application) which contained the following grounds (as written):
1. The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.
Particulars:
a. The Tribunal stated in paragraph 6 that “their agent did not attend the hearing”, then in paragraph 9, the Tribunal has had regard to “the submissions made by the applicant's migration agent at the hearing”.
2. The Tribunal denied the applicants procedure fairness.
Particulars:
The Tribunal relied on the United Nation' Human Development Report 2020 at paragraph 27 and it failed to provide a copy of the report or relevant pages of the report to the applicants and give the applicants a chance to comment or respond.
3. The Tribunal failed to consider relevant consideration and overlooked applicant's submission when assessing genuine temporary entrance criteria.
Particulars
a. The applicant submitted in his visa application that he intends to join the business of his friend in Karachi, Pakistan on a partnership basis as he wants to utilise the management skills to gain from his graduate diploma to develop his recently started business
b.The applicant is the eldest son in the family who is entrusted with extra responsibilities after the death his parents to keep the family united as per his culture and tradition.
c. The applicants have provided evidence through his brother's statement that he has a share of property he received from his parents.
On 2 February 2025, the applicants filed a written submission.
On 7 February 2025, the first respondent filed a written submission.
Hearing on 25 February 2025
At the hearing in this Court on 25 February 2025, the Applicant appeared unrepresented, assisted by an Urdu interpreter. Max Gao of HWL Ebsworth appeared for the first respondent.
The Applicant brought to Court a copy of the Court Book, filed and served by the first respondent in October 2021 (CB), which contained the Tribunal’s decision and documents before the Tribunal. At the commencement of the hearing, I directed the Applicant’s attention to the Tribunal’s decision in the Court Book. I explained that the role of the Court was limited to determining whether there was a jurisdictional error, which I described as a significant mistake or error in the Tribunal’s decision. I explained the main categories of jurisdictional error. I asked the Applicant if he wanted a 15-minute break to consider oral submissions to make to the Court. The Applicant did not want a break.
Mr Gao tendered the Court Book. The Applicant sought to tender a bundle of documents dated between May 2022 and February 2025 concerning diploma courses he had completed or in which he was enrolled. Although I indicated to the parties that I doubted the documents were relevant in establishing jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision, in circumstances where the applicant was unrepresented, I accepted the tender of the documents.
The Applicant then made oral submissions. Most of the oral submissions raised issues not identified in the Amended Application or in the applicants’ written submission. The contentions raised by the applicants orally and in writing are considered below.
CONSIDERATION
Ground 1 in Amended Application
Although the applicants had a representative when their matter was before the Tribunal, the representative did not attend the hearing before the Tribunal on 14 July 2021. The Tribunal correctly stated at [6] that “the applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent, but their agent did not attend the hearing”. In contrast, the Tribunal stated at [9]:
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review ought to be affirmed in this case. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal has had regard to:
a. the evidence of the applicant given at the hearing;
b. the submissions made by the applicant’s migration agent at hearing;
c. all written material filed by or on behalf of the applicant; and
d. other relevant documents on the Tribunal and Department files.
The Tribunal notes that not all the evidence and material that has been placed before the Tribunal has been specifically referred to in the Tribunal’s reasons as set out below. The reasons incorporate reference only to that information that the Tribunal has been found to be fundamental or materially significant to the determination of the issues in the case.
The Tribunal’s statement at [9] that it had regard to “the submissions made by the applicant’s agent at the hearing” was an error since the agent did not attend the hearing. By ground 1, the applicants contend that this error by the Tribunal was a jurisdictional error. For the following reasons, I consider that the erroneous statement at [9(b)] was not a jurisdictional error.
First, in circumstances where the Tribunal made two contradictory statements at [6] (that the agent “did not attend the hearing”) and [9(b)] (that the Tribunal had regard to the submissions “made by [the agent] at hearing”), a question is whether the statement at [9(b)] was a typographical error or alternatively whether the Tribunal genuinely believed the agent attended the hearing: cf EQV20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1252 at [29]. I consider that the statement at [9(b)] was a typographical error because:
(a)The Tribunal expressly stated at [6] that the “agent did not attend the hearing”.
(b)The hearing was held on 14 July. It is unlikely that the Tribunal member would forget by 15 July that the agent did not attend the hearing.
(c)No other part of the Tribunal’s decision suggests that the Tribunal believed the agent attended the hearing.
Second, a mere typographical error is not a jurisdictional error: see SZLPH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 744 at [29]-[32].
Third, even if the Tribunal genuinely believed that the agent attended the hearing and so was mistaken about this matter, a mere error of fact is not a jurisdictional error: see Acuna Plaza v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 424; 164 ALD 258 at [16]-[28].
Ground 1 does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.
Ground 2 in Amended Application
Paragraph 9(c) of Direction 69 requires decision-makers to have regard to “economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country”. The Tribunal, in considering this matter at [27], stated:
The applicant has been working onshore but provided limited details in relation to dates and income in his questionnaire filed in response to the s359(2) letter which raised concerns for the Tribunal about whether he was being selective in relation to this information. The Tribunal went through this at hearing and the applicant gave evidence that he was working: as a bus maintenance worker for one year in 2009 earning AUD18,720 per annum; as a forklift operator for three months in 2020 earning AUD18,304 per annum; as a fleet car manager for two years from 2011 earning AUD31,200 per annum; as a taxi driver from 2013-2018 with flexible hours but usually earning AUD36,400-41,600 per annum; as an uber driver earning AUD31,200-39,000 per annum but he indicated the COVID19 Pandemic has impacted this and he has not been working for the last two weeks. He gave evidence at hearing that his wife is not working and has not worked at all since they have been together. The applicants’ expenses onshore are AUD31,200 per annum. The applicant’s family owns residential property in Pakistan worth AUD230,000 equivalent. The Tribunal notes that the United Nations Human Development Index, which is a statistical comparison of life expectancy, education and per capita income indicators by country, ranks Pakistan as 154th in the world as compared to Australia’s ranking of 8th in the world. Taking the evidence as a whole the Tribunal considers that, given the potential for the applicant to earning – in Australian dollars – thousands in excess of their expenses onshore, the exchange rate between Australia and Pakistan and the fact that the applicant holds qualifications which enable him to secure comparatively highly paid employment onshore, the applicants’ economic circumstances onshore may be acting as a significant incentive for them to remain onshore.
A footnote to the sentence referring to the United Nations Human Development Index indicates the source document as United Nations Human Development Report 2020 (UN Report).
In ground 2, the applicants complain that the Tribunal did not provide a copy of the UN Report to the applicants and give them a chance to comment or respond. For the following reasons, this ground does not establish a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.
First, the Tribunal’s obligation to afford the applicants procedural fairness was codified in Division 5 of Part 5 of the Act: see s 357A; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; 249 CLR 332 at [55]. Pursuant to s 359A(1) of the Act (which was in Division 5 of Part 5), the Tribunal was required to give an applicant “clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review”. However, the Tribunal’s obligation under s 359A(1) did not extend to information “that is not specifically about the applicant or another person and is just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member”: see s 359A(4)(a). The UN Report met the exception in s 359A(4)(a). It follows that the Tribunal did not breach the obligation in s 359A(1). The applicants have not otherwise explained how, in light of s 357A, the Tribunal could have denied the applicants procedural fairness by not providing them with a copy of the UN Report.
Second, the applicants have not tendered a transcript of the hearing before the Tribunal. The applicants have not established that the Tribunal did not, at the hearing, discuss the UN Report with the Applicant and give him an opportunity to comment.
Ground 2 does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.
Ground 3 in Amended Application
Particular (a): It is contended in particular (a) that “the applicant submitted in his visa application that he intends to join the business of his friend in Karachi, Pakistan on a partnership basis as he wants to utilise the management skills to gain from his graduate diploma to develop his recently started business”, and the Tribunal failed to consider this submission.
However, the Applicant did not make this submission in his visa application or at any other time to the Department or Tribunal. As correctly stated in the first respondent’s written submission, “this contention must fail as the Tribunal cannot be faulted for not considering something that was never put to it”.
Particular (b): It is contended in particular (b) that “the applicant is the eldest son in the family who is entrusted with extra responsibilities after the death [of] his parents to keep the family united as per his culture and tradition”, and the Tribunal failed to consider this submission.
The Applicant stated in a genuine temporary entrant statement accompanying his student visa application at CB 30: (Cultural Responsibilities Contention)
I am currently in Australia with my family on Temporary Graduate Visa and have complied with all visa requirements … I am the eldest son and have immediate family settled in Pakistan. After the death of my parents, I have got extra responsibilities to look after and keep my family united as per our tradition and culture. Therefore, I want to settle my family business after having my education completed from here.
The Tribunal stated at [25]:
The applicant returned to Pakistan for one month in 2012 to see his family, for one and a half months in early 2013 in relation to his marriage, for nine days in May 2013 for personal family reasons and for one and a half months in December 2013 in relation to his marriage. His parents have both passed away and he has one brother and one sister living in Pakistan and he speaks to them almost daily. His wife’s parents are living in Pakistan and he gave evidence that having lost his own parents he appreciates the importance of spending time with them and wishes to return to Pakistan so his wife can be with her parents. He states ‘no’ in relation to community ties to Pakistan in his questionnaire filed in response to the s359(2) letter. However, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has personal ties to Pakistan in the form of family acting as an incentive for him to return but does not consider the evidence supports a conclusions that those ties are acting as a significant incentive for him to return particularly given he has not visited Pakistan since 2013 and has been onshore now for nearly thirteen years.
The Tribunal stated at [9(c)] that it “has had regard to … all written material filed by or on behalf of the applicant”, and added at the end of [9] that the Tribunal’s reasons “incorporate reference only to that information that the Tribunal has been found to be fundamental or materially significant to the determination of the issues in the case”. There is no reason to doubt these statements by the Tribunal. There is nothing in the Tribunal’s decision which suggests that it did not have regard to all written material filed by or on behalf of the applicants, including the Cultural Responsibilities Contention in the Applicant’s genuine temporary entrant statement. The mere fact that the Tribunal does not expressly record a submission made by an applicant does not mean the Tribunal did not have regard to the submission: see Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184; 236 FCR 593 (WAEE) at [46]-[47].
Further, the Applicant’s father died in about 2014 (see CB 54) and the Applicant’s mother had died by December 2018 (CB 54). Yet, by the time of the Tribunal’s decision in July 2021, as recorded by the Tribunal at [25], the Applicant had not visited Pakistan since 2013. This appears to undermine the significance the applicants place in this Court on the Cultural Responsibilities Contention in comparison to the Tribunal’s concern at [25] (and repeated at [22], [23] and [29]) that the Applicant “has not visited Pakistan since 2013 and has been onshore for nearly thirteen years”.
I do not accept that the Tribunal did not have regard to the Cultural Responsibilities Contention. Instead, on application of the principles explained in WAEE at [46]-[47] and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; 206 CLR 323 at [69], I consider that the Tribunal had regard to the Cultural Responsibilities Contention; but, in considering whether the Applicant had personal ties in Pakistan which acted as a significant incentive for him to return to Pakistan, the Tribunal did not consider the Cultural Responsibilities Contention “materially significant to the determination of the issues in the case”: Tribunal at [9].
Particular (c): It is contended in particular (c) that “the applicants have provided evidence through his brother's statement that he has a share of property he received from his parents”, and the Tribunal failed to consider this evidence.
At CB 113 is a document prepared by the Applicant’s brother dated 14 January 2019 titled “Financial undertaking”. The brother stated that the Applicant “has equal share in the assets left by our father”, “we are entitled to equal assets left by him in the form of business and property”, “his share in the business has been kept as a fixed deposit of AUD 40,000 in my savings account and that is solely for him”, and “during my brother’s stay in Australia while studying, the fixed deposit will be solely for his tuition fee and living expenses”. The “Financial undertaking” document, together with some accompanying documents, appear to have been provided by the Applicant to the Department to establish that the applicants had access to sufficient funds to support themselves during the period of their stay in Australia and thereby satisfied cl 500.214 of Schedule 2.
It is stated at AS [17]-[18]:
[17]The primary applicant’s brother submitted in his statement by way of an affidavit that the primary applicant has a share of the property, and it is another incentive for the applicants to return to Pakistan.
[18]Accordingly, it is submitted that by overlooking the critical factors relevant to the assessment of Genuine Temporary Entrant criteria, it is submitted that Tribunal has made an obvious and clear legal error and therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal decision should be vacated.
However, first, as stated above, the Applicant did not provide the “Financial undertaking” document to the Department to establish that the applicants had an incentive to return to Pakistan. The Applicant provided the “Financial undertaking” document to the Department to establish that the applicants had access to sufficient funds to support themselves during the period of their stay in Australia and thereby satisfied cl 500.214 of Schedule 2. Second, in circumstances where the Applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that he would use the funds referred to in the “Financial undertaking” document to support the applicants during their stay in Australia, it follows that the funds could not provide an incentive for the applicants to return to Pakistan after the Applicant completed the educational course. Third, the Tribunal at [9(c)] stated that it “has had regard to … all written material filed by or on behalf of the applicant”. There is no reason to doubt this statement by the Tribunal. There is no indicator in the Tribunal’s decision which suggests that it did not have regard to all written material filed by or on behalf of the applicants.
I do not accept that the Tribunal did not have regard to the document from the Applicant’s brother and its content.
Ground 3 does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.
Contentions at hearing on 25 February 2025
Tribunal at [15]: The Applicant applied for the student visa the subject of this Court proceeding the day before the expiration of a subclass 485 visa in December 2018. The Tribunal stated at [15] that “this raises concerns for the Tribunal about the true nature of the applicant’s intentions in seeking this student visa and whether he may be motivated by factors other than study in order to prolong his stay onshore”. At the hearing on 25 February 2025, the Applicant told the Court that in 2018 his son had breathing and feeding problems, the Applicant was busy because of his son’s medical problems, and this was the reason he applied for the student visa “the day before the expiration of the 485 visa”. The Applicant has not provided evidence to prove that he gave this explanation to the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot be faulted for not considering something that was not put to it. Alternatively, even if the Applicant gave this explanation to the Tribunal, the fact that the Tribunal did not expressly refer to the explanation does not mean the Tribunal did not consider it: WAEE at [46]-[47].
Tribunal at [21]: The Applicant, having completed a Bachelor of Commerce in Pakistan (see at [16]), applied for the student visa the subject of this Court proceeding to undertake a graduate diploma (see at [19]). The Tribunal stated at [21] that it was “troubled by the downgrade in education level this study represents for the applicant”. The Applicant told the Court at the hearing on 25 February 2025 that he explained to the Tribunal why he downgraded educational levels. The Applicant has not identified to the Court the source or content of this explanation. Whether or not the Applicant explained this matter to the Tribunal, I consider that it was open to the Tribunal to be “troubled by the downgrade in education level”.
Tribunal at [22]: The Tribunal noted at [22] that the Applicant “states ‘no’ in relation to community ties to Australia in his questionnaire filed in response to the s 359(2) letter”. The Applicant told the Court that his relationship with his brother in law in Australia was not good in 2021, which was why he answered “no” to the question about community ties in Australia, but the relationship with his brother in law has now improved. This matter does not identity a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.
Tribunal at [23]: The Tribunal stated at [23] that “the length of the applicant’s time onshore is of concern to the Tribunal in and of itself – a period of thirteen years is very, very difficult to reconcile with the meaning of ‘temporary’ as required by the Act and Regulations in relation to student visas”. At the hearing on 25 February 2025, the Applicant contended that the Tribunal refused to grant him a further student visa solely because he had been in Australia for 13 years. The Applicant’s contention is not correct, since the Tribunal’s reasons for decision indicate that the Tribunal considered a broader range of matters before concluding at [32] that it “is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily”. This matter does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.
Tribunal at [25]: The Tribunal stated at [25]:
However, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has personal ties to Pakistan in the form of family acting as an incentive for him to return but does not consider the evidence supports a conclusion that those ties are acting as a significant incentive for him to return particularly given he has not visited Pakistan since 2013 and has been onshore now for nearly thirteen years.
In relation to the Tribunal’s concern that the Applicant had not visited Pakistan since 2013, the Applicant sought to explain to the Court why he had not visited Pakistan since 2013. This matter does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.
None of the matters raised by the Applicant at the hearing in this Court on 25 February 2025 identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.
COSTS
At the conclusion of the hearing, I invited submissions from the parties on costs. Mr Gao did not have information to propose an amount sought by the first respondent. I will hear submissions on costs at the delivery of judgment.
I certify that the preceding sixty (60) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser. Associate:
Dated: 27 March 2025
0
6
2