Challagali v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2025] FedCFamC2G 1490

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Challagali v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1490   

File number(s):

SYG 451 of 2024

Judgment of:

JUDGE ZIPSER

Date of judgment:

11 September 2025 

Catchwords:

MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant student visa – Tribunal found applicant gave bogus document in relation to visa application within meaning of PIC 4020(1)  – Tribunal not satisfied there were compassionate or compelling circumstances which justified waiver of PIC 4020 – no point of principle – application dismissed

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 65, 476

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl 500.217 of Sch 2, cl 4020 of Sch 4

Cases cited:

NWWJ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 176

Division:

Division 2 General Federal Law

Number of paragraphs:

54

Date of hearing:

25 August 2025

Place:

Parramatta

Applicant:

In person

Solicitor for the Respondents:

Jessica Schultz (Mills Oakley Lawyers)

ORDERS

SYG 451 of 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

RAJESH VARMA CHALLAGALI

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE ZIPSER
DATE OF ORDER:	11 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,100.

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 ZIPSER

INTRODUCTION

1. On 15 March 2024, the applicant lodged 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 27 February 2024. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (subclass 500) visa under s 65 of the Act.

2. For the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed.

   LEGISLATION

3. Clause 500.217(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) provided as a time of decision criterion for a student visa:

   The applicant satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4010, 4013, 4014, 4020 and 4021.

4. Public interest criterion 4020 (also known as PIC 4020) in Schedule 4 to the Regulations relevantly provided:

   (1) There is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal during the review of a Part - 5 reviewable decision, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to:

   (a)       the application for the visa; or

   (b) a visa that the applicant held in the period of 12 months before the application was made.

   …

   (4) The Minister may waive the requirements of any or all of paragraphs (1)(a) or (b) and subclause (2) if satisfied that:

   (a)       compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or

   (b) compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen;

   justify the granting of the visa.

   (5)       In this clause:

   information that is false or misleading in a material particular means information that is:

   (a)       false or misleading at the time it is given; and

   (b)relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.

   Note: For the definition of bogus document, see subsection 5(1) of the Act.

   FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. In 2019, the applicant, a citizen of India, arrived in Australia as the holder of a subclass 500 student visa.

6. On 15 March 2021, the applicant applied for a further subclass 500 student visa. In support of the application, he provided two documents titled “Memorandum of Marks”  and “Consolidated Marks Memo / Credit Sheet” which, on their face, were issued by a university in India and stated that the applicant was awarded a Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering degree in 2017, with the degree course undertaken at a college recorded as “N8-SEC, Saroornagra” (College) (Degree Award Document).

7. On 30 September 2021, the Department of Home Affairs (Department), after seeking to verify the authenticity of the Degree Award Document with the College, sent the applicant a letter inviting him to comment on information which suggested the Degree Award Document was not genuine.

8. On or about 25 October 2021, the applicant provided a response to the Department’s letter.

9. On 5 May 2022, a delegate of the first respondent made a decision refusing to grant the applicant a student visa. The delegate found that the Degree Award Document was a bogus document within the meaning of PIC 4020(1) and the applicant had therefore given or caused to be given a bogus document to the Department. It followed that the applicant did not meet PIC 4020, and therefore did not satisfy cl 500.217.

10. On 20 May 2022, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision.

11. On 2 June 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing by telephone on 5 July 2023.

12. On 5 July 2023, the applicant appeared at the hearing before the Tribunal by telephone to give evidence and present arguments, with the assistance of his representative and an interpreter in the Telugu language.

13. On 27 February 2024, the Tribunal made a decision affirming the decision under review not to grant the applicant a student visa.

    TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

14. The Tribunal at [4] identified that the issue in this matter was whether the applicant provided the Minister with a bogus document as part of his visa application and therefore did not meet PIC 4020(1).

15. The Tribunal at [5]-[6] outlined the requirements of PIC 4020. The Tribunal at [12]-[16] considered the meaning of “bogus document”.

16. The Tribunal at [7]-[11] and [17]-[23] considered the evidence before it up to the commencement of the hearing before the Tribunal on 5 July 2023. The Tribunal at [24]-[28] summarised its discussions with the applicant at the hearing before the Tribunal on 5 July 2023.

17. The Tribunal at [30] explained that, based on the evidence before it, it was uncertain whether the Degree Award Document was a bogus document, and it decided to write to the College on 22 August 2023 to obtain further information.

18. The Tribunal at [30]-[31] recorded that on 26 August 2023 the Tribunal received a response from the College to its letter dated 22 August 2023. The College stated that the applicant neither completed nor enrolled in a Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering degree course at the College, and did not complete any other degree course at the College. The College added that it believed the Degree Award Document was a “fake document”.

19. The Tribunal at [32] recorded that on 27 October 2023 it sent the applicant a letter inviting him to comment on the response from the College. The applicant’s response dated 10 November 2023, “[did] not address any of the particulars of information put to him in that letter”.

20. The Tribunal at [38]-[39], after considering the evidence at [33]-[37], concluded that the Degree Award Document “is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so” and “is a bogus document for the purposes of PIC 4020(1) of the Regulations”.

21. The Tribunal at [42] added that the applicant “intentionally gave the Minister and/or an officer …. a, not only demonstrably untrue, but knowingly false bogus document”.

22. The Tribunal at [45]-[50] considered whether it should waive the requirements of PIC 4020. The Tribunal at [50] concluded that it was “not satisfied that in this case there are any compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia that would justify the granting of the visa” and was not “satisfied that there are any compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen that justify granting the visa”. It followed that the Tribunal would not waive the requirements of PIC 4020(1).

23. The Tribunal at [51]-[52] concluded that the applicant “does not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl 500.217 of the Regulations” and therefore the criteria for the grant of a subclass 500 visa were not satisfied.

    PROCEEDING IN THIS COURT

    Judicial review application and steps up to hearing on 25 August 2025

24. On 15 March 2024, the applicant lodged an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The application contained the following ground (as written) (Application):

    1.The first Respondent (Department of Home Affairs) and Second Respondent (Tribunal) erred in its decision as

    a.Due consideration was not given to the fact of the Applicant's circumstances.

    Particulars

    i.Due consideration was not given to Applicant's circumstances.

    ii.Consideration was not given to the fact on how the Applicant was unable to contact the educational institution authorities to get the authentication of the documents.

    iii.The Applicant should had been given an opportunity to prove himself.

    iv.The Administrative Appeals Tribunal failed to consider evidence that Applicant was a genuine student at the institution.

    v.The Applicant's unique and compelling circumstances were not considered.

    vi.The Applicant was not provided an opportunity of a natural justice.

    b.The Second Respondent failed to ask the relevant questions and seek further information in relation to the circumstances and also failed to consider the information that was provided.

    Particulars

    The Applicant did provide all the relevant information in relation to the exceptional circumstances and also change of circumstances however consideration was not given.

25. On 22 January 2025, a registrar of the Court made procedural orders, including that, upon the matter being listed for hearing, the applicant file and serve at least 28 days before the hearing a written submission, any amended application, and any additional evidence on which he sought to rely.

26. On 8 July 2025, the parties were notified by the registry of the Court that the matter was listed for hearing on 25 August 2025.

27. On 11 August 2025, the first respondent filed a written submission (‘RS’).

28. The applicant did not file a written submission or any further documents prior to the hearing.

    Hearing on 25 August 2025

29. At the hearing in this Court on 25 August 2025, the applicant appeared unrepresented. Jessica Schultz from Mills Oakley Lawyers appeared for the first respondent.

30. The applicant had not requested an interpreter for the hearing. During the hearing, the applicant spoke, and appeared to understand, English reasonably well.

31. The applicant brought to the hearing a copy of a court book, filed by the first respondent in May 2025, which contained the Tribunal’s decision and documents before the Tribunal (Court Book). At the commencement of the hearing, I directed the applicant’s attention to the Tribunal’s decision. I explained that the Court’s role is limited to considering whether there is a jurisdictional error, which I described as a significant error or mistake, in the Tribunal’s decision. With reference to the Tribunal’s decision, I explained the main categories of jurisdictional error. I explained that, for the applicant to win the Court proceeding, he must persuade the Court there is a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

32. I offered the applicant a break of 10 minutes to consider oral submissions he wanted to make to the Court. The applicant took up this opportunity.

33. After the break, Ms Schultz tendered a copy of the Court Book (CB), and a supplementary court book filed by the first respondent in August 2025.  I also read the affidavit of the applicant sworn on 15 March 2024.

34. I invited the applicant to make closing oral submissions. The applicant stated that, in respect of the Degree Award Document, most of the marks in the document are wrong. I directed the applicant’s attention to the mark for English on the page of the Degree Award Document at CB 37. I asked the applicant if the mark for English was wrong. The applicant replied “yes”. I put to the applicant that, if most of the marks in the Degree Award Document are wrong, it appears to follow that the Degree Award Document contains false information. The applicant agreed that the Degree Award Document contains false information, but explained that this was the fault of the College.

35. I directed the applicant’s attention to the letter from the College dated 22 August 2023 at CB 157 in which the College wrote, among other matters, that the applicant was never enrolled in Computer Science and Engineering, but was enrolled in Electronics and Communication Engineering. The applicant stated that he was enrolled in Computer Science and Engineering. He could not explain how the College was mistaken about the course the applicant studied.

36. I reminded the applicant that he must identify a significant error or mistake in the Tribunal’s decision. I invited the applicant to identify an error or mistake. After a long pause, the applicant claimed the Tribunal should have asked the College about something. The applicant was unable to specify the question the Tribunal should have asked the College.

37. Ms Schultz, in her oral submissions, principally relied on the first respondent’s written submission filed in August 2025.

    CONSIDERATION

    Grounds in Application

    Preliminary

38. It is contended in part that the “first respondent (Department of Home Affairs) … erred in its decision”. As correctly stated by the first respondent at RS [33], “the applicant’s complaint against the delegate cannot succeed as the Court has no jurisdiction to review the delegate’s decision as a primary decision”.

    Ground 1(a)

39. It is contended in particular (i) that “due consideration was not given to the applicant’s circumstances”. The applicant has not particularised or identified the circumstances to which due consideration was not given. A “failure to particularise a ground of review is itself a sufficient basis to dismiss it”: NWWJ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 176 (NWWJ) at [37]. In any event, the Tribunal, in its detailed reasons for decision, carefully considered the applicant’s circumstances. That the Tribunal made a decision with which the applicant is dissatisfied does not mean the Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s circumstances.

40. It is contended in particular (ii) that “consideration was not given to the fact on how the applicant was unable to contact the educational institution authorities to get the authentication of the documents”. However, the Tribunal at [27] expressly considered the applicant’s submission “that he was unable to get confirmation from the College that they were having trouble with their database because he is in Australia”.

41. It is contended in particular (iii) that “the applicant should have been given an opportunity to prove himself”. The meaning of this complaint is unclear. The applicant was given adequate opportunities to provide:

    (a)written materials to the Tribunal prior to the hearing on 5 July 2023 (see letter dated 2 June 2023 at CB 101-103);

    (b)oral evidence and submissions at the hearing on 5 July 2023; and

    (c)further information in response to a letter dated 27 October 2023 at CB 160-162.

42. It is contended in particular (iv) that the Tribunal “failed to consider evidence that the applicant was a genuine student at the institution”. The Tribunal clearly considered the applicant’s evidence concerning his studies in India, and accepted at [34] that the applicant “was an ECE student … at the College”, although “he did not complete his studies”. That the Tribunal found that the Degree Award Document was a bogus document does not mean the Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s evidence concerning his studies in India.

43. It is contended in particular (v) that “the applicant’s unique and compelling circumstances were not considered”. However, the Tribunal, after:

    (a)inviting the applicant at the hearing on 5 July 2023 to give evidence concerning whether there were compassionate or compelling circumstances that justified a waiver of PIC 4020(1) (see at [49]); and

    (b)again, inviting the applicant to comment on this issue by letter dated 27 October 2023 (see at [32] and [49]),

    considered the applicant’s evidence and submissions at [49]-[50]. That the Tribunal did not find there were compassionate or compelling circumstances does not mean the Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s evidence and submissions.

44. It is contended in particular (vi) that “the applicant was not provided an opportunity of a natural justice”. The applicant has not provided particulars or details of the manner in which he claims to have been denied procedural fairness. A “failure to particularise a ground of review is itself a sufficient basis to dismiss it”: NWWJ at [37].

    Ground 1(b)

45. It is contended that the Tribunal “failed to ask the relevant questions and seek further information in relation to the circumstances and also failed to consider the information that was provided”. The applicant does not particularise or identify the “information” alleged not to have been considered, or the “circumstances” in respect of which the Tribunal failed to seek further information. A “failure to particularise a ground of review is itself a sufficient basis to dismiss it”: NWWJ at [37].

46. It is contended that the Tribunal “provide[d] all the relevant information in relation to the exceptional circumstances and also change of circumstances however consideration was not given”. As stated in paragraph 43 above, the Tribunal at [49]-[50] clearly considered the applicant’s evidence and submissions concerning compassionate or compelling circumstances which might justify a waiver of PIC 4020(1).

47. For the above reasons, the grounds in the Application do not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

    Matters raised in affidavit of applicant sworn 15 March 2024

48. I have read the applicant’s affidavit sworn on 15 March 2024. The applicant asserts in paragraph 13 of the affidavit that “I am a genuine student residing in Australia”. This assertion does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. The applicant contends in paragraph 16 of the affidavit that the Tribunal “failed to recognise that there was evidence available that I was a genuine student at the previous institute”. I address this contention in paragraph 42 above. The applicant contends in paragraph 17 of the affidavit that the Tribunal “failed to consider the case law prevalent in the exceptional circumstances”. If this is intended to be a reference to the waiver power in PIC 4020(4) in Schedule 4 to the Regulations, the Tribunal considered the case law at [46]-[48]. The applicant’s contention in paragraph 19 of the affidavit appears to be the same as in particular (ii) of ground 1(a) of the Application, which I address in paragraph 40 above.

1. The matters referred to in the applicant’s affidavit do not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

   Matters raised in oral submissions

2. The applicant stated in oral submissions at the hearing on 25 August 2025 that, in respect of the Degree Award Document, most of the marks in the document were wrong, but this was the fault of the College. This was a curious submission to make to the Court, since the submission appeared to involve a concession by the applicant to the Court that he provided, or caused to be provided, to the Department a document which contained false information. In any event, the submission does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

3. The other matters raised by the applicant in oral submissions do not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

   Further observation

4. As discussed with the applicant during the hearing, a risk he faced by prosecuting this proceeding to conclusion is that the Court would publish a judgment which:

   (a)in order to address the applicant’s contentions, records the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant gave an officer of the Department a bogus document; and

   (b)would become available through databases of Australian court decisions to readers globally.

   This may have detrimental consequences for the applicant, such as in relation to his reputation. However, the applicant decided to prosecute the proceeding to conclusion.

5. I recommend that the applicant reflect on whether he will endeavour to continue court proceedings in respect of the Tribunal’s decision. If he continues court proceedings, he faces the risk of further judgments which, in the normal course, will become available through databases of Australian court decisions to readers globally.

   COSTS

6. At the conclusion of the hearing, I invited submissions from the parties on costs. Ms Schultz sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $6,100 which was not greater than the first respondent’s solicitor/client costs. The applicant did not object to this claim. I consider the amount sought by the first respondent is reasonable. I will make this order.

I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser.

Associate:

Dated:       11 September 2025