Bodapati v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2025] FedCFamC2G 879
•11 June 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Bodapati v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 879
File number: MLG 1549 of 2018 Judgment of: JUDGE KENDALL Date of judgment: 11 June 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Student visa – decision of the then Administrative Review Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to consider evidence – whether the Tribunal considered irrelevant factors or failed to have regard to relevant factors – whether the Tribunal “took too long” to conduct its review – applicant’s late request to have time to appoint a solicitor refused – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 2A
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth), Items 10 and 25 in Schedule 16
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 476
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg 1.03 and cll 500.2, 500.211, 500.212 & 500.218 in Schedule 2
Cases cited: ADF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1099
Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600
BKT17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 384
Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437
SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294
SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 64 Date of hearing: 11 April 2025 Place: Perth Applicant: Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms R Huang Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
MLG 1549 of 2018 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: NARENDRA BODAPATI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE KENDALL
DATE OF ORDER:
11 JUNE 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.
2.The application be dismissed.
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 KENDALL:
BACKGROUND
Recent Amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Act”) was amended on 14 October 2024 following the commencement of the Administrative Review Tribunal (the “ART”) (and by virtue of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the “Consequential Act”)).
This judgment relates to a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). That decision is dated 4 May 2018 and thus predates those amendments. Unless otherwise stated, any reference to the Act in this judgment is a reference to the Act as was in force at the date of the Tribunal’s decision (or as at the date of any relevant matter referenced in this judgment).
At the time the application for judicial review was filed (being on 4 June 2018), the Tribunal was listed as the second respondent in this matter. Item 10 in Schedule 16 of the Consequential Act provides that the ART is (after the transition time) substituted for the Tribunal as a party to any proceeding pending in any Court or Tribunal immediately before the transition time. Item 25 of the Consequential Act relates to any proceeding in a Court that is not finalised before the transition time and that relates to a decision made, or other thing done, by the Tribunal. After the transition time, a proceeding will continue in accordance with the new law. By continuing with a proceeding, anything the Court could have done in relation to the Tribunal before the transition time can now be done in relation to the ART.
In the circumstances, the Court made an order (at the hearing of this matter before this Court on 11 April 2025) substituting the ART as the second respondent in this proceeding.
The applicant’s migration history
The applicant is a citizen of India (Court Book (“CB”) 10-12 & 26). He first arrived in Australia in April 2014 as the holder of a Student (Class TU) Higher Education Sector (Subclass 573) visa and was enrolled to study a Certificate IV in ESL and a Master of Business Administration (International Management) (the “Masters course”) (CB 55).
On 1 September 2016, the applicant applied for the Student (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa (the “visa”) the subject of the application before this Court (CB 9-24). With his visa application, the applicant provided a “Genuine Entrant Statement”, a copy of his passport, educational records and confirmation of overseas student health cover (CB 25-30). In his visa application, the applicant indicated that he held a student visa but that visa was due to expire before he had completed his studies relating to the Masters course (CB 18). The applicant also appointed a migration agent to act as his authorised recipient and to assist him with that visa application (the “representative”) (CB 13).
Later that same day (being on 1 September 2016), the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the “Department”) acknowledged receipt of the visa application (CB 31).
On 19 October 2016, the Department requested more information from the applicant in support of his visa application (CB 33-39). In particular, the Department asked for evidence of the applicant’s financial capacity, as follows (CB 37-38):
Financial capacity
Provide evidence of funds to support yourself and all family unit members during the first 12 months of your proposed study and stay in Australia, or during your entire proposed study and stay in Australia if it is less than 12 months.
In order to meet expenses for course fees, living costs, school costs and travel costs, you need to demonstrate that you have access to $13,167.16.
Evidence of financial capacity includes:
•Money deposit with a financial institution
•Loan with a financial institution
•Government loans; and
•Scholarship or financial support
Evidence of annual income of the primary applicant’s spouse or parents can also be used to show financial capacity. The evidence of annual income must be provided in the form of official government documentation, such as a tax assessment and must have been issued in the 12 months immediately before the application is made.
•For an individual applicant, evidence of annual income of $ 60,000
•For an application that includes family members, evidence of annual income of $ 70,000
The funds shown in the visa application must be available for use to financially support you and any accompanying family members during your stay in Australia.
If the funds are held in an account owned by another person, you should provide a signed letter from that person stating that the money is released to you to spend on your studies.
You should also provide a copy of identification for that person showing their full name and signature, such as a passport or national identity card.
On or about 28 October 2016, the applicant provided the Department with a letter from ANZ Bank confirming his account balance of $13,379.63 (as at 28 October 2016) and a proposed itinerary booking with flight details for the applicant to travel to India from 29 November 2016 to 20 December 2016 (CB 40-48).
On 6 December 2016, the applicant completed the Masters course (CB 55).
On 11 January 2017, a delegate of the first respondent (the “Minister”) refused to grant the applicant the visa (CB 53-55). The delegate noted that the applicant did not meet the requirement set out in cl 500.211 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the “Regulations”) but was ultimately not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily and thus found that he did not satisfy cl 500.212 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations (CB 55).
On 25 January 2017, the applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision by the Tribunal (CB 56-57). In his review application, the applicant asked that all correspondence be sent to him directly as the “review applicant” and provided the Tribunal with an email address to enable it to do so (CB 57).
On 31 January 2017, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s review application (CB 58-60).
On 11 April 2018, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a hearing before it, scheduled to take place on 4 May 2018 (CB 61-72). That hearing invitation letter also invited the applicant to “provide all documents [he] intend[ed] to rely on to establish that [he met] the criteria for the visa” (CB 62). The Tribunal also requested that the applicant provide the following (CB 63):
In addition, please provide the following information so that a decision can be made as quickly as possible:
1.A copy of your current Certificate of Enrolment (COE) or other document/s that show you are currently enrolled in a course of study as defined in cl.500.111 of the Migration Regulations 1994, as is required for the grant of a student visa.
2.Documents that show your past studies in Australia, including copies of all your attendance certificates, academic transcripts and certificates of completion as well as documents evidencing any work related to past or intended studies in Australia.
3.We will assess whether you are a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (which was the reason for the delegate’s decision). Relevant to this requirement is a direction from the Minister known as Direction No. 69, a copy of which is attached.
Please provide a written statement addressing the issue of whether you are a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student by referring to Direction No.69.
We request that you provide the written statement and other evidence to us at least 7 days before the hearing date.
On 4 May 2018, the applicant appeared at that Tribunal hearing to give evidence and present arguments in support of his review application (CB 73-76). At that hearing, the applicant completed an information form in relation to his studies (CB 77-82). Relevantly, the applicant answered “no” when asked if he had “a current COE” (CB 77).
At the end of that hearing (on 4 May 2018), the Tribunal made an oral decision. By that decision, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision refusing to grant the applicant the visa (CB 85).
That same day (being on 4 May 2018), the Tribunal reduced its oral decision to a written statement of its decision and reasons (CB 89-91). A copy of those written reasons was provided to the applicant (via email) on 7 May 2018 (CB 87-88).
On 4 June 2018, the applicant applied to the then Federal Circuit Court of Australia (the “FCCA”) for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision (CB 1-6). The applicant provided an affidavit with that application (annexing a copy of the Tribunal’s confirmation of its oral “outcome of review” and associated notification letter and factsheet) (CB 7-8).
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
The application for judicial review is brought pursuant to s 476 of the Act. To obtain assistance from this Court, the applicant must demonstrate that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. It is thus useful to first set out the Tribunal’s decision.
The Tribunal’s decision is three pages long and spans 11 paragraphs. In full, it provides as follows (CB 89-91):
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
1.This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 11 January 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
2.The applicant applied for the visa on 1 September 2016. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
3.The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
4.The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 may 2018 to give evidence and present arguments.
5.For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
6.The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant intends to stay in Australia temporarily.
Enrolment (cl.500.211)
7.Clause 500.211 relevantly requires that at the time of this decision the applicant is enrolled in a course of study: cl.500.211(a). The applicant does not claim to meet any of the alternative criteria in cl.500.211.
8.‘Course of study’ is relevantly defined in cl.500.111 of the Regulations as a ‘full-time registered course’. ‘Registered course’ is defined in r.1.03 of the Regulations as a course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, to provide the course to overseas students.
9.At the hearing the applicant gave evidence that he was not enrolled to study a course here in Australia. The Tribunal informed the applicant that this was a mandatory criteria for the issuing of a student visa and that this was now the key issue under consideration, not whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of this decision, the applicant is enrolled in a course of study and accordingly cl.500.211 is not met.
10.Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISION
11.The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
APPLICATION TO THIS COURT
The application for judicial review (filed in the then FCCA by the applicant on 4 June 2018) contained three “grounds of review” as follows (without alteration) (CB 4):
1.The application was refused based on that i did not complete my study, i completed my masters and was studying my last subject. The case officer did not consider this matter at the time of decision.
2. Relevant factors were left out when making the decision.
3.The application decision is effected by jurisdictional error and hence need to be quashed and reassessed as per Migration Act 1958.
The applicant also filed an affidavit (affirmed by the applicant on 4 June 2018) in support of the judicial review application. That affidavit annexed a copy of the Tribunal’s confirmation of its oral “outcome of review” and associated notification letter and factsheet and relevantly stated as follows (without alteration) (CB 8):
1. I believe the decision taken was effected by jurisdictional error.
2.Irrelevant factors were given much weightage and relevant factor or issues were ignored when taking the decision.
On 10 August 2021, procedural orders were made by Registrar van der Westhuizen of the then FCCA giving the applicant an opportunity to file an amended application, any supplementary Court Book and written submissions.
The applicant appeared before this Court (by video link on 11 April 2025) without legal representation. Ms Rebecca Huang from the Australian Government Solicitor appeared on behalf of the Minister (also by video link). The Court asked the applicant to confirm that he had received copies of the CB and the Minister’s written submissions.
The materials before the Court include the application for judicial review and supporting affidavit filed by the applicant on 4 June 2018 (the applicant’s affidavit being taken as read and in evidence at the hearing on 11 April 2025), a CB numbering 91 pages (marked as Exhibit 1 at the hearing of this matter) and written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 5 March 2025.
Noting that the applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave him the opportunity to explain orally what he thought the Tribunal “did wrong”. This is now the standard procedure in this Court following the decisions in Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600 at [7] and BKT17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 384.
To assist the applicant, the Court explained to him that the only issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error. It was stressed that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. Further, it was explained that for migration decisions of this sort, they most commonly include, but are not limited to, the following categories:
(a)where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question: Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (“Craig”) at 198;
(b)where the decision-maker ignores relevant material: Craig at 198;
(c)where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material: Craig at 198;
(d)where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures: SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294 at [207]-[208];
(e)where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias: SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 at [2]; and
(f)where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable: Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3 at [33]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437 at [44].
It was also explained that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal’s decision or grant the applicant the visa that he seeks. Rather, the role of the Court is restricted to determining if the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at the decision it arrived at: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.
Against this background, the applicant told the Court that, when he applied for the visa, he was still studying his Masters degree and, had the “case officer looked at [his] application while [he] was still studying, [he] might have been granted the visa and not needed to apply to the Tribunal”.
At the conclusion of the hearing (just prior to the Court adjourning), the applicant also asked whether he could “appoint a lawyer” to assist him. For reasons that will be outlined below, the Court refused to grant the applicant further time to appoint a solicitor.
The applicant’s concerns, to the extent that they point to any issue of jurisdictional error, will be addressed by the Court below.
CONSIDERATION
Relevant legislative provisions
Before considering the applicant’s grounds of review, it is useful to first outline the relevant legislative provisions applicable to this matter.
In order to be granted a Subclass 500 visa, the applicant needed to satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of the visa (as in force at the time of the Tribunal’s decision on 4 May 2018).
The eligibility criteria for the grant of that visa are set out in cl 500.2 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations, which relevantly provided as follows:
500.2—Primary criteria
Note:The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one member of a family unit. The other members of the family unit who are applicants for a visa of this subclass need satisfy only the secondary criteria.
All criteria must be satisfied at the time a decision is made on the application.
That primary criteria is set out at cll 500.211 to 500.218 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations. Of particular relevance in this matter was cl 500.211 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations which, at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, provided as follows:
500.211
One of the following applies:
(a) the applicant is enrolled in a course of study;
(b)if the application is made in Australia—the applicant is seeking to remain in Australia because the relevant educational institution requires the applicant to do so during the marking of the applicant’s postgraduate thesis;
(c)if the applicant is a Foreign Affairs student—the applicant has the support of the Foreign Minister for the grant of the visa;
(d)if the applicant is a Defence student—the applicant has the support of the Defence Minister for the grant of the visa.
A “course of study” was defined in the Regulations in relation to a Subclass 500 visa as follows:
Subclass 500—Student
500.1—Interpretation
500.111
In this Part:
course of study means the following:
(a)in relation to a secondary exchange student—a full‑time course of study under a secondary school student exchange program administered by a State or Territory education authority;
(b)in relation to a Foreign Affairs student—either:
(i)a full‑time course of study or training under a scholarship scheme approved by the Foreign Minister; or
(ii)a full‑time course of study or training under a training program approved by the Foreign Minister;
(c)in relation to a Defence student—either:
(i)a full‑time course of study or training under a scholarship scheme approved by the Defence Minister; or
(ii)a full‑time course of study or training under a training program approved by the Defence Minister;
(d)in any other case—a full‑time registered course.
…
Regulation 1.03 of the Regulations also provided a definition of “registered course” as follows:
1.03 Definitions
In these Regulations, unless the contrary intention appears:
…
registered course means a course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, to provide the course to overseas students.
Note:A current list of registered courses appears in the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students kept under section 10 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000.
Grounds of review and the applicant’s affidavit
Ground one
As outlined above, ground one relevantly provided as follows:
1.The application was refused based on that i did not complete my study, i completed my masters and was studying my last subject. The case officer did not consider this matter at the time of decision.
Ground one arguably took issue with the decision made by the Minister’s delegate. To the extent that the applicant raised concerns with the conduct of or the decision made by a delegate of the Minister, this Court has no jurisdiction to review that decision: ss 476(2) and (4) of the Act. Further, the Tribunal’s decision “cures” any error in the delegate’s decision.
Insofar as the applicant referenced the Tribunal’s decision and suggested that the Tribunal failed to consider that he was studying his last subject of the Masters course, ground one fails on a factual level. The Court notes that the applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing that he was not enrolled in any course of study (at [9] of the Tribunal’s reasons). The applicant also provided a completed information form to the Tribunal in which he again confirmed that he did not “have a current COE” and stated that he had completed his Masters course in November 2016 (CB 77). In circumstances where the applicant made no reference to any study before the Tribunal, the Tribunal could not be expected to consider evidence that was not before it. Further, no findings were made by the Tribunal in relation to the applicant not completing his studies.
No jurisdictional error arises in relation to ground one.
Ground two and the applicant’s affidavit
Ground two relevantly stated as follows:
2. Relevant factors were left out when making the decision.
The applicant’s affidavit relevantly stated as follows:
2.Irrelevant factors were given much weightage and relevant factor or issues were ignored when taking the decision.
As outlined above, the primary criteria for the grant of the visa was contained in cll 500.211 to 500.218 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations. Of particular relevance in this matter was cl 500.211 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations which required that the applicant be enrolled in a course of study.
As noted above, the applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing that he was not enrolled in any course of study (at [9] of the Tribunal’s reasons and CB 77). The Court notes that the Tribunal was not required to engage in any weighing exercise to determine whether the applicant was enrolled in any course of study. Further, once the Tribunal determined that the applicant was not enrolled in a course of study and could not satisfy cl 500.211 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations, it was not required to go on to consider whether the applicant satisfied any of the other primary criteria for the grant of the visa.
The Court considers that the applicant’s reference to the weight the Tribunal gave relevant factors or issues is in fact referencing the delegate’s decision (where the delegate considered the applicant’s circumstances and various factors in determining whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant pursuant to cl 500.212 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations). As stated above (in relation to ground one), this Court has no jurisdiction to review the delegate’s decision: ss 476(2) and (4) of the Act.
No jurisdictional error arises in this regard.
Ground three and the applicant’s affidavit
Ground three relevantly provided as follows:
3.The application decision is effected by jurisdictional error and hence need to be quashed and reassessed as per Migration Act 1958.
The applicant’s affidavit relevantly stated:
1. I believe the decision taken was effected by jurisdictional error.
Ground simply referenced the “decision” containing a jurisdictional error but did not elaborate on what error was alleged. The applicant was also unable to do so at the hearing of this matter.
No jurisdictional error arises in this regard.
Oral submissions
Whether the Tribunal “took too long” to conduct its review
As outlined above, the applicant suggested that, when he had applied for the visa, he was still studying his Masters degree and, had the “case officer looked at [his] application while [he] was still studying, [he] might have been granted the visa and not needed to apply to the Tribunal”. The Court considers the reference to the “case officer” to be a reference to the decision made by the Minister’s delegate. As the Court has already stated above, this Court has no jurisdiction to review a decision made by the delegate of the Minister: ss 476(2) and (4) of the Act.
Insofar as the applicant is suggesting that the Tribunal “took too long” to make a decision in his case, the Court disagrees for the reasons that follow.
There is no set time frame within which the Tribunal was required to make any decision. Section 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the “AAT Act”) (as was in force at the time of the Tribunal’s decision) required as follows:
2A Tribunal’s objective
In carrying out its functions, the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that:
(a) is accessible; and
(b) is fair, just, economical, informal and quick; and
(c) is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matter; and
(d)promotes public trust and confidence in the decision‑making of the Tribunal.
As can be seen from the extract above, the Tribunal was simply required to be “fair, just, economical and quick”: s 2A(b) of the AAT Act.
The Court also notes that the applicant provided the Tribunal with evidence that he had completed his Masters course in November 2016 (CB 77). That is, the applicant had already completed his studies prior to making an application for review to the Tribunal (on 25 January 2017). The length of time taken by the Tribunal to conduct its review was therefore of no relevance to the applicant finishing his Masters course. Further, the applicant could have enrolled in a further course of study upon completion of his Masters course but did not do so.
No jurisdictional error arises in this regard.
Applicant’s request to appoint a lawyer refused
As outlined above, at the conclusion of the hearing (on 11 April 2025 and just prior to the Court adjourning), the applicant asked whether he could “appoint a lawyer” to assist him.
The Court notes that the applicant filed his judicial review application in the then FCCA on 4 June 2018 (nearly seven years prior to the hearing before this Court). There was no evidence before the Court to suggest that the applicant had made any attempts to obtain legal representation during that time or whether he would in fact be able to obtain legal representation if the Court adjourned the hearing.
This Court also notes that there is no right to legal representation in migration proceedings before this Court: ADF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1099. Further, no formal request for an adjournment was made by the applicant and, despite being given multiple opportunities to speak during the hearing, the applicant did raise any concerns about wanting to obtain legal representation until the hearing was concluded.
In the circumstances, the Court considered that it would not be in the interests of the administration of justice to adjourn the hearing or delay the matter further to allow the applicant additional time to attempt to obtain legal representation at that very late stage.
CONCLUSION
The application for judicial review and supporting affidavit (both filed by the applicant on 4 June 2018) and the applicant’s oral submissions before this Court (at the hearing on 11 April 2015) have failed to identify any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
The Court is otherwise unable to identify any jurisdictional error.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
I certify that the preceding sixty-four (64) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Kendall. Associate:
Dated: 11 June 2025
0
12
4