Battan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1610
•3 October 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Battan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[2025] FedCFamC2G 1610
File number(s): BRG 312 of 2025 Judgment of: JUDGE COULTHARD Date of judgment: 3 October 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (subclass 500) – judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – application for an extension of time to bring judicial proceedings under s 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether extension of time is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice – length of delay – prospects of success – application refused Legislation: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 27.03
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 476; 476(1); 476(4); 477(1); 477(2)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl 500.111; 500.212; 500.212(a)
Cases cited: BTI15 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 49
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs & Environment (1984) 3 FCR 344
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; [2010] HCA 16
MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1391; (2015) 242 FCR 585
MZZYV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 957
Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex Parte Marks [2000] HCA 67; (2000) 177 ALR 491
SZDA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 135 ALD 17; [2012] FCA 1319
SZTRY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 86
Tu’uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] HCA 28; (2022) 276 CLR 579
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 75 Date of last submission/s: 25 September 2025 Date of hearing: 25 September 2025 Place: Brisbane Applicant: The applicant appeared on his own behalf Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms Tran, Solicitor of Sparke Helmore, appeared on behalf of the first respondent Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting appearance save as to costs ORDERS
BRG 312 of 2025 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: RAM MEHAR BATTAN
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE COULTHARD
DATE OF ORDER:
3 OCTOBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for extension of time is refused.
2.The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs, fixed in the amount of $4,189.38.
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 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE COULTHARD
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is an application for an extension of time pursuant to section 477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) within which to make an application to seek judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by which the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs, (as the Minister was then called) (“the delegate”), to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (subclass 500) visa.
BACKGROUND
Application for a visa and the delegate’s decision
The applicant is a citizen of India. The applicant arrived in Australia on 22 May 2023 on a Visitor visa. On 21 August 2023 the applicant made an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (subclass 500) visa (“the visa”) (Court Book (“CB”) 1-16) to undertake a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery commencing on 8 April 2024 and ending on 21 March 2025; a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management commencing on 24 March 2025 and ending on 5 September 2025; a Diploma of Hospitality Management commencing on 31 March 2025 and ending on 1 August 2025; and an Advanced Diploma of Leadership Management commencing on 11 August 2025 and ending on 9 August 2026 (CB 30-33).
On 18 October 2023, the delegate refused to grant the applicant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant criteria in cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (“the Regulations”) (CB 40-44) (“delegate’s decision”).
Application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
On 3 November 2023, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision (CB 45-51). The applicant appointed a registered migration agent to act as his representative and authorised recipient (“migration agent”) (CB 49).
On 23 December 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to provide information that he was enrolled in a registered course of study and was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (CB 56-57). The Tribunal provided a link to the Student Visa Information Form (“SVI”) which set out details of the requested information. The Tribunal further stated that in assessing whether the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, it must have regard to Ministerial Direction No. 108, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’ (“Direction No. 108”), and provided a link to that direction.
On 6 January 2025, the applicant’s migration agent submitted the following documents to the Tribunal: a completed SVI form; and Certificates of Enrolment (“CoE”) for a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery (commencing on 25 November 2024 and ending on 21 March 2025), Certificate IV in Kitchen Management (commencing on 24 March 2025 and ending on 5 September 2025), and Diploma of Hospitality Management (commencing on 8 September 2025 and ending on 9 January 2026) (CB 62-78).
On 17 January 2025, the applicant’s migration agent submitted the applicant’s Genuine Temporary Entrant (“GTE”) statement (CB 79-95).
On 11 February 2025, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 28 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case (CB 97-101). The Tribunal requested the applicant to complete and return the ‘response to hearing notice’ form and invited the applicant to submit all documents he intended to rely on by 21 February 2025. The Tribunal also requested that the applicant provide a copy of his current CoE or other documents that show he was currently enrolled in a course of study as defined in cl 500.111 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations.
On 17 February 2025, the applicant’s migration agent wrote to the Tribunal and attached the applicant’s submissions, translated property documents with respect to the property in India, a death certificate for the applicant’s father, the applicant’s marriage certificate and the completed ‘response to hearing notice’ form dated 12 February 2025 (CB 104-122).
On 28 February 2025, the applicant attended the hearing (CB 123-124). The applicant was assisted by his migration agent and an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages.
On 4 March 2025, the Tribunal notified the applicant by email to the migration agent that it had made a decision (“notification of decision”) to affirm the delegate’s decision and gave written reasons for its decision (“Decision”) (CB 127-143).
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
The application before this Court is not a hearing of the applicant’s substantive application for judicial review. Nevertheless, given the Court is to make an assessment of the merits of the substantive application, it is useful to set out a summary of the Tribunal’s decision so far as it is relevant to the Court’s assessment of the merits of the grounds of review in the substantive application for judicial review.
The Tribunal identified that the determinative issue was whether the applicant satisfied cl 500.212(a) of the Regulations, that is, whether the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because he intended to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily [4]-[5].
The Tribunal stated that in considering whether the applicant satisfied cl 500.212(a) of the Regulations, the Tribunal must have regard to the specified factors in Direction No. 108 [6]. The Tribunal went on to state that the factors should not be used as a checklist but as a guide to decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion [7].
The Tribunal summarised the evidence before it as follows:
(a)The applicant was a 36-year-old Indian national who arrived in Australia as the holder of a visitor visa on 22 May 2023 [9];
(b)A written statement to the Department that addressed the ‘genuine temporary entrant’ criterion (“GTE Statement”) which the Tribunal set out in full [11];
(c)Pre-hearing submissions filed on the applicant’s behalf which the Tribunal summarised [12];
(d)PRISMS records that showed that since arriving onshore, the applicant had successfully completed a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery (8 April 2024 to 21 March 2025) and a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management (24 Match 2025 to 5 September 2025) and that the applicant was currently enrolled in a Diploma of Hospitality Management (8 September 2025 to 9 September 2026) [13]-[14].
The Tribunal then went on to consider the applicant’s evidence at the hearing as follows:
(a)As to his future plans, the applicant stated that he wished to open a ‘big restaurant’ but when pressed for details he stated that he wished to open the restaurant in his hometown; that he had no specific business plans for this endeavour; and when asked about how he planned to finance it, the applicant stated that he had ‘a property’ in India. The Tribunal stated that overall, it was not persuaded that the applicant’s claims as to his future career were the product of a considered plan [21];
(b)As to why he chose to study in Australia rather than India, the applicant stated that the ‘main reason’ was that Australian qualifications were both ‘theoretical and practical’ and that both were important [22];
(c)As to his family life, the applicant was married, and his wife was resident in India; the couple had no children; the applicant’s mother was also resident there; however, his father was deceased. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s family and economic circumstance in India provided some incentive for him to return there at the conclusion of his studies [23];
(d)As to the applicant’s immigration history, the Tribunal observed that the applicant had previously returned to India after visiting Australia between 11 December 2019 and 30 January 2020. The Tribunal stated that it gave some weight to these factors in the applicant’s favour [24];
The Tribunal stated that it found the applicant’s oral evidence vague and unpersuasive and that in answering questions he generally replied monosyllabically and when pressed for details he spoke in short, vague and generic sentences [17].
The Tribunal concluded that it was not persuaded that there was substance to the claims set out in the applicant’s GTE statement and his submissions beyond vague and generic statements, or that they accurately reflected his motives [26]. The Tribunal said that in arriving at this assessment, it made appropriate allowance for the challenges of interpretation between Hindi and English, and any nervousness the applicant may have felt in the Tribunal setting. The Tribunal stated that it also weighed those factors set out above that were favourable to the applicant in this assessment but found that those factors were insufficient to address the weakness of his evidence as a whole [26].
The Tribunal said that it was not satisfied the applicant intended genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily and nor was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student as required by cl.500.212(a) [27]-[28].
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review [30].
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT
These proceedings were commenced pursuant to s 476(1) of the Act by application filed on 5 April 2025. The applicant also filed an affidavit affirmed on 5 April 2025. The affidavit sets out some background to the matter and annexes a copy of the Tribunal’s decision.
Pursuant to s 477(1) of the Act, the application was required to be made within 35 days of the Tribunal’s Decision, that is by, 4 April 2025. Accordingly, the application was filed one day out of time.
Procedural orders were made permitting the applicant to file and serve an amended application with proper particulars and any additional evidence on which he seeks to rely and requiring the applicant to file and serve written submissions. The first respondent was ordered to file and serve written submissions and any additional evidence on which it seeks to rely. Orders were also made as to the preparation, filing, and service of a Court Book.
The material before the Court was the application, the applicant’s affidavit annexing a copy of the Tribunal’s decision, the first respondent’s response, the first respondent’s written submissions and the Court Book. Before the hearing commenced, the Court ensured the applicant had a copy of these documents in Court with him.
The applicant appeared in person on his own behalf. The applicant had the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages.
The Court explained to the applicant that as the application for judicial review was not filed within 35 days of the date of the Tribunal’s decision the purpose of the hearing was to consider whether the Court should exercise its discretion to extend time for the filing of his application for judicial review. The Court explained that the factors it would consider were length of the delay and the explanation for the delay; any prejudice to the parties; and, whether the proposed grounds of review had any prospects of success were an extension of time to be granted.
CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to s 477(2) of the Act, the Court may, by order, extend the time for the making of an application for a remedy to be granted in the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction under s 476 of the Act. Section 477(2) provides:
2. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may, by order, extend that 35 day period as the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) considers appropriate, if:
a.an application for that order has been made in writing to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) specifying why the applicant considers that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make the order; and
b.the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make the order.
The phrase “necessary in the interests of the administration of justice” is ‘deliberately broad’ and it is in each case for the judge hearing the extension of time application to determine which of a range of potentially relevant factors are to be taken into account in evaluating whether the interests of the administration of justice make it necessary for an extension of time to be granted in that particular case (Tu’uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] HCA 28; (2022) 276 CLR 579 at [39] (“Katoa”) per Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ).
Nevertheless, factors commonly regarded include (Katoa at [12] per Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ; [40] per Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ):
a. the length of the delay;
b. the explanation for the delay;
c. any prejudice to the respondent or third parties;
d. any prejudice to the administration of justice as a result of the delay;
e. the merits of the underlying application.
The Court has taken the approach of considering those factors in determining whether it is satisfied in the interests of the administration of justice that time should be extended.
Extent and explanation for the delay
The application for judicial review was filed on 5 April 2025. As already noted, the application was filed one day outside the 35-day time limit.
The first respondent accepts that this is a very short delay (first respondent’s submissions (“FRS”) [25]). The Court agrees.
In the application for judicial review, the applicant provides the following as the grounds of his application for extension of time (without alteration):
1.I made an application myself without a proper knowledge of the process but wasn't made properly.
2.Now, I have gone through all the details and made sure that I am making a proper application.
3.I have made full efforts to ensure application is made in time hence please accept my request for extension of time.
Procedural orders were made requiring the applicant to file an affidavit explaining the delay in filing the application for judicial review. When making procedural orders on 3 July 2025, a Registrar of this Court explained to the applicant that r 27.03 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) requires an application for an extension of time be accompanied by an affidavit which the states the fact on which the applicant relies and why the application was not filed within time.
The applicant did not file an affidavit, nor did he file any written submissions.
The applicant was given the opportunity, with the assistance of the interpreter, to make oral submissions in support of his application to extend time. To assist the applicant, the Court read out the applicant’s grounds for the application for extension of time and these were interpreted for him. The Court invited the applicant to make submissions explaining those grounds. The applicant stated that he had no further comment.
The Court referred the applicant to ground three in the grounds for the application to extend time and asked him to describe what “full efforts” he had made to ensure the application was filed on time, that is, on or before 4 April 2025.
The applicant told the Court that he had attempted to file his application for judicial review; that the filing fee had been deducted from his bank account but that seven days later, the file was “rejected”, and the filing fee was refunded to his bank account. The applicant said that he had proof of this rejection. He went on to say that he then approached an agent to assist. The applicant did not identify who he was referring to or what that person then did on his behalf.
The Court then referred the applicant to the Filing and Hearing Details on the application for judicial review and observed that the date of lodgement was 5 April 2025. The Court asked the applicant whether he had attempted to lodge the application before 5 April 2025. The applicant said that he had attempted to file the application on 12 April 2025 but after the Court observed that this was after 5 April 2025, the applicant then said that he had attempted to file the application on 20 March 2025. There was no evidence before the Court to support the applicant’s submission that he had attempted to file the application on 20 March 2025 or on any other date on or before 4 April 2025.
In ground one of the grounds for extension of time, the applicant states that he did not have “proper knowledge of the process”. To the extent that this is an assertion that the applicant was unaware of the 35-day time limit, it cannot be accepted. When notifying the applicant of its decision the Tribunal provided to the applicant a fact sheet titled “Information about hearings” (“the fact sheet”) (CB 141-143). The fact sheet stated that the applicant may apply to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision and that the Court would consider whether the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error. The fact sheet further stated that if the applicant wishes to apply for review, the applicant must do so within 35 days of the date of the Tribunal’s decision (CB 141-143).
The first respondent submits that the applicant’s explanation for the delay is unsatisfactory in circumstances where the Tribunal sent the applicant the fact sheet explaining the time in which the applicant must lodge an application for review and correctly observed that it was the applicant’s responsibility to ascertain his review rights and the applicable time-limits (FRS [27] citing SZDA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 135 ALD 17; [2012] FCA 1319 at [38]; MZZYV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 957 at [25]). The Court agrees.
The first respondent submitted that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that there was no evidence before the Court to support the explanation the applicant had now given to the Court. In the absence of evidence, the Court cannot accept the applicant’s explanation for the delay.
The absence of evidence supporting the applicant’s explanation for the delay weighs against an extension of time being granted. However, the Court acknowledges the difficulties an unrepresented applicant may have in adequately articulating the reasons for delay and providing supporting evidence. Having regard to the very short delay, overall, the Court is of the view that these factors taken together weigh in favour of an extension being granted.
Prejudice, impact on the public and the applicant
The first respondent conceded that there was no prejudice to it in the granting of the extension of time beyond the public interest in the finality of administrative decision making (FRS [28] citing Re Commonwealth of Australia; Ex Parte Marks [2000] HCA 67; (2000) 177 ALR 491). However, the first respondent submitted that the mere absence of prejudice alone is not a sufficient reason to grant an extension of time (FRS [28] referring to Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Minister for Home Affairs & Environment (1984) 3 FCR 344 at 349; SZTRY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 86 at [6]).
As to the impact on the applicant, the Court observes that no right of appeal would lie to the Federal Court of Australia in the event that this Court did not grant the extension sought although an application could be made to that Court for judicial review (BTI15 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 49 at [4] per Logan J).
On balance, the Court is satisfied that this factor weighs in favour of an extension being granted.
Merits of the proposed substantive application
The Court is of the view that it is permissible and appropriate, in considering whether in the interests of the administration of justice time should be extended, for the Court to consider whether the proposed grounds of review have any merit. The Court will not grant an extension of time, even where the delay is short, if the proposed grounds of review do not have any merit. To do so would be futile.
In forming a view as to the merits of the substantive application, the Court is not necessarily limited to anything more than an impressionistic consideration of the grounds of review (Katoa at [19] per Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ; at [54] per Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ). The task of the Court in assessing merits is to evaluate whether a ground of review is ‘arguable’, ‘reasonably arguable’ ‘sufficiently arguable’ or has ‘reasonable prospects of success’ (Katoa at [15] per Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ citing MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 242 FCR 585 at 598 [63] per Mortimer J (as Her Honour then was)).
Despite the procedural order permitting him to do so, the applicant did not file an amended application. The grounds of review in the application are (without alteration):
1.I am requesting for the Judicial review by the honourable court to review the decision given by the Administrative Review Tribunal on 28th February 2025 to refuse my Student visa.
2.On 21st August 2023, I made an application for a student visa, which the delegate from Department of Home Affairs (DHA) refused my student visa on 18th October 2023 under s65 of the Migration Act I 958 ("the Act") for not meeting the requirements of cl. 500.212(a) of Schedule 2to the Migration Regulations1994.
3.I then referred the decision to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) with an expectation of a favourable outcome, but the decision was affirmed on 28th February 2025 in decision by the Member at ART to refuse my student visa. I was notified of this decision on the 28th of February 2025.
4.I believe both Department of Home Affairs and Administrative Review Tribunal have made an unlawful decision to refuse my protection visa. I affirm this affidavit in support of my application for judicial review of the ART's decision made on 28th February 2025 to refuse my student visa. I have attached decision copy given by the ART to me on 28th February 2025. I have attached decision copy given by the ART along with this affidavit.
5.For these reasons set out in my application, I believe that a jurisdictional error has been made while making a decision on my visa refusal and I seek judicial review of the decision. I request honourable court to review my case and provide me justice.
6.The decision made by the ART was given without a thorough understanding and acceptance of the documentation, enrolment and comprehensive submission provided to the ART. I provided substantial reasons for the genuineness of my student visa application supported by the personal, economical and other ties to my home country. The tribunal failed to take these facts and evidence into consideration while deciding my application for review, thereby constituting jurisdictional error.
7.I strongly believe that both parties i.e., Department of Home Affairs and Administrative Review tribunal fell into Jurisdictional Error by acting unreasonably while considering my application for review. I request honourable court to accept my case to provide me justice.
The first respondent submits that the grounds of review in the proposed substantive application have no prospects of success and for that reason it is not necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to grant an extension of time (FRS [31]).
Despite the procedural order requiring him to do so, the applicant did not file any written submissions. The applicant was given the opportunity to make oral submissions with the assistance of the interpreter.
To assist the applicant, the Court took the applicant through each of the proposed grounds of review with the assistance of the interpreter. The Court then invited the applicant to make oral submissions explaining each of the grounds in his application for judicial review.
The applicant submitted that he thought the Tribunal had made an error in considering the gaps in his study when he went back to India for a funeral and to get married.
The Tribunal considered the two occasions on which the applicant returned to India at [24] of its decision when considering the applicant’s immigration history. The Tribunal did not make any adverse finding in that regard. In fact, the Tribunal concluded that it gave some weight to those factors in the applicant’s favour. The Court could not find any reference in the Tribunal’s reasons to ‘gaps’ in the applicant’s study.
The applicant further submitted that he had stated that his intentions were to return to India upon the completion of his studies but that the Tribunal found that his intentions were to stay indefinitely in Australia. The Tribunal did not make any such finding. After considering the applicant’s evidence about his future plans in India – to open a big restaurant in his hometown – the Tribunal concluded that it was not persuaded that the applicant’s claims as to his future career were the product of a considered plan (at [21]) and was not persuaded that the applicant’s GTE Statement and his submissions accurately reflected the applicant’s motives (at [26]). That led the Tribunal to conclude that it was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily and that it followed that the applicant did not meet cl 500.212(a) (at [27]).
The Court finds no jurisdictional error based on the matters submitted by the applicant.
The Court now turns to consider each of the grounds of review in the application for judicial review.
Ground one
Ground one is not a proper ground of review. As the first respondent submits, it does not identify any error in the Tribunal’s decision and is simply a request for judicial review.
No jurisdictional error is established on ground one.
Grounds two and three
Similarly, grounds two and three do not identify any error by the Tribunal and simply set out information about the history of the application for the visa and review before the Tribunal.
No jurisdictional error is established on either ground two or three.
Grounds four and five
Grounds four and five are unparticularised statements to the effect that the applicant believes the Department and the Tribunal made an unlawful decision and made jurisdictional errors and asks the Court to review his case and provide him with justice.
To the extent that the applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision, the Court has no jurisdiction to do so as the delegate’s decision was a primary decision as defined by s 476(4) of the Act.
No jurisdictional error is established on ground five.
Ground six
By ground six, the applicant contends that the Tribunal failed to consider his documents, COE’s and submissions which address the GTE criteria, in deciding his application.
The Tribunal’s reasons for decision show that the Tribunal summarised the evidence before it, including the applicant’s GTE statement (at [11]), pre-hearing submissions ([12]), and PRISMS records showing the applicant’s course completions and current enrolment ([13]-[14]). The Tribunal summarised the applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing ([17]-[24]). The Tribunal considered the applicant’s evidence about his study plans and future career plans, his personal circumstances, economic circumstances and ties to India. These matters were not overlooked by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal identified the GTE criteria and the factors in Direction No. 108 ([4]-[8]). In considering those factors, the Tribunal said it placed some weight in the applicant’s favour on his circumstances, including personal and economic ties to India ([23]-[24]). In the end, the Tribunal found that it was not persuaded that the applicant’s claims as to his future career were the product of a considered plan (at [21]) and was not persuaded that there was substance to the claims set out in the applicant’s GTE statement and his submissions beyond vague and generic statements (at [26]).
No jurisdictional error is established on ground six.
Ground seven
In ground seven, the applicant contends that both the Department and the Tribunal acted unreasonably in their consideration of his application for review. As already noted, the Court has no jurisdiction to review the delegate’s decision.
As the first respondent submits, the test for legal unreasonableness is whether the decision is one that no rational or logical decision maker could have arrived at on the same evidence, or whether it was open to the Tribunal to engage in the process of reasoning and make the findings that it did on the material before it (FRS [37] citing Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; [2010] HCA 16 at [130], [133], [135]).
The applicant does not identify how the Tribunal acted unreasonably in circumstances where, as noted above, the Tribunal considered the GTE criteria and factors in Direction No. 108 having regard to the evidence before it and gave weight to them.
The Court considers that the Tribunal made a rational and logical decision that was open to it on the evidence and did not make a decision that was legally unreasonable.
No jurisdictional error is established on ground seven.
In conclusion, the Court considers that the grounds of review in the proposed application for judicial review have no prospects of success.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court finds that an extension of time within which to file the application for judicial review is not necessary in the interests of the administration of justice. The application to extend time is refused.
I certify that the preceding seventy-five (75) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Coulthard. Associate:
Dated: 3 October 2025
0
11
3