Mittal v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2025] FedCFamC2G 1695

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Mittal v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1695

File number: ADG 211 of 2021
Judgment of: JUDGE LADHAMS
Date of judgment: 15 October 2025
Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant the applicant a student visa – whether the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness – whether the Tribunal made wrong findings on factual issues – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.   
Legislation:

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth).

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 357A, 359, 360, 360A, 362B, 476, 499

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Sch 2, cl 500.212, reg 4.21

Cases cited:

Dait v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 288 FCR 1; [2022] FCAFC 25

Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21; [2022] FCAFC 3

Eros v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1061

Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2020) 274 FCR 646; [2020] FCAFC 16

LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 280 CLR 321; [2024] HCA 12

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2016] FCA 575

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; [2010] HCA 16

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611; [1999] HCA 21

SZTKR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1613
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 64
Date of hearing: 9 October 2025
Place: Perth (via Webex)
Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms E Rogerson
Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs
Solicitor for the Respondents: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

ORDERS

ADG 211 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:

MOHIT MITTAL

Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE LADHAMS

DATE OF ORDER:

15 OCTOBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is 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 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 LADHAMS:

INTRODUCTION

  1. The applicant applied for a student visa on 6 July 2019. A delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant a student visa on 19 September 2019 because the applicant did not meet…

Continue reading Mittal v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mittal v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1695
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1695
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mittal v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the applicant, a national of India, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship not to grant the applicant a student visa. The applicant contended that the AAT had denied him procedural fairness and made erroneous findings on certain factual matters. The applicant was self-represented before the court.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the AAT decision was affected by jurisdictional error and, if so, whether it was sufficient to warrant judicial intervention. The applicant argued that the AAT failed to consider certain evidence and made findings that were not supported by the evidence before it. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship submitted that the AAT's decision was lawful and that the applicant had not established any jurisdictional error.

The Court found that the AAT had considered the applicant's claims and evidence, and the reasoning of the AAT was open to it on the evidence before it. The Court held that the AAT's findings on the evidence presented by the applicant were not irrational or illogical and that there was no breach of procedural fairness. The Court found that the AAT had appropriately weighed the applicant's personal ties in India against his potential ties in Australia, including his employment and the prospect of bringing his son to Australia. The Court held that the AAT's decision was not affected by jurisdictional error, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Court found that the AAT's decision was lawful and that the applicant had not established any jurisdictional error warranting judicial intervention. The application for judicial review was dismissed with no orders for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In circumstances where the applicant is self-represented, I have considered whether the factual findings made by the Tribunal, and complained about by the applicant, were open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it. I have considered whether the Tribunal decision was illogical or irrational, noting that ‘[i]f probative evidence can give rise to different processes of reasoning and if logical or rational or reasonable minds might differ in respect of the conclusions to be drawn from that evidence, a decision cannot be said by a reviewing court to be illogical or irrational or unreasonable, simply because one conclusion has been preferred to another possible conclusion’: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; [2010] HCA 16 at [131] (Crennan and Bell JJ). The applicant’s evidence that Indian courses do not meet the needs of the modern hospitality industry The Tribunal said at [13] of its reasons: Considering the applicant only decided to study the proposed courses, which are very different to his previous studies and work experience in the Information Technology field, the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant may not considered the cooking and hospitality courses that are available in India. The applicant has does not appear to have any first-hand experience with hospitality schools and courses taught in India. He provided no evidence of how Indian courses are lacking, for example course descriptions or information from Indian education provider websites. In other words, there is no supporting evidence to back up the applicant’s claim that the Indian courses are not meeting the needs of the modern hospitality industry. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated sound reasons for not studying the proposed courses (or similar courses) in his home country. In his ground of application, the applicant claims that the Tribunal’s finding that he did not provide evidence that Indian courses do not meet the needs of the modern hospitality industry is incorrect, because the evidence is his own knowledge and experience that Indian cookery schools are not professionally run. In his oral submissions to this Court, the applicant submitted that there is a major difference between how courses are conducted in Australia and India. There is more stress on theory in India, whereas in Australia there is more kitchen experience. The applicant’s submissions to the Court invite the Court to impermissibly review the merits of the Tribunal’s finding. It is evident from the Tribunal’s reasons that the Tribunal was aware that the applicant claimed Indian courses were not meeting the needs of the modern hospitality industry and considered his assertion. The Tribunal at [13] was noting the lack of independent corroborative evidence to support the applicant’s assertion, in circumstances where the applicant did not have any first-hand knowledge. The reasoning of the Tribunal was open to it on the evidence before it.Whether the applicant’s desire to bring his son to Australia decreased his incentive to return to India

Decision

Reasons for decision

For the reasons explained below, the applicant has not established that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error. The application to this Court is therefore dismissed. SUMMARY OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION The Tribunal recognised that in considering whether the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily for the purposes of cl 500.212(a) in Sch 2 to the Regulations, the Tribunal was required to have regard to Direction No 69 ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’ (Direction No 69) made under s 499 of the Migration Act. The Tribunal noted at the time the applicant applied for the student visa, he enrolled in a Diploma of Leadership and Management and an Advanced Diploma in Leadership and Management. He completed the first of these courses but did not commence the second. Instead, he enrolled in a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery, a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, a Diploma of Hospitality Management and an Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated sound reasons for not studying the proposed courses in his home country and noted that there was no supporting evidence to back up the applicant’s claim that the Indian courses did not meet the needs of the modern hospitality industry. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s proposed courses were very different from his past experience in Information Technology. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant has personal ties in India, including family comprising of his mother, father, one of his sisters and his son. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was divorced and had recently applied for custody of his son and advised that he would like to bring his son to Australia to spend time with him. The Tribunal expressed concern that the applicant’s intention to bring his son to Australia could lessen his incentive to return to India. The Tribunal did not consider that the applicant’s economic circumstances would be a significant incentive to return to India upon the completion of his courses in Australia. This finding was made having regard to the financial evidence regarding the applicant’s company in India, the expiry of the lease for the company office and the income the applicant was earning in Australia. The Tribunal considered that any cash held by the applicant could be easily moved between India and Australia and was not a tie to India. The Tribunal acknowledged there was no evidence that the applicant was using the student visa to avoid military service commitments or because of political or civil unrest in his home country. In considering the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, the Tribunal accepted the applicant lived with his sister and acknowledged he had no other family living in Australia. The Tribunal noted that the applicant found employment as a pasta maker and earns an income which is significantly more than the amount he said he needs for his living expenses. The applicant’s desire to bring his son to Australia raised concerns for the Tribunal, as bringing more family to join him in Australia would decrease his incentive to return to India. The Tribunal found that the applicant’s sister, employment and potential to bring his son to Australia all represent incentives to remain in Australia. These ties, when combined with the sudden change to the proposed courses that would extend the applicant’s time in Australia significantly, led the Tribunal to the view that the applicant was using the student visa to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The evidence before the Court comprises: (a)an affidavit filed by the applicant with his judicial review application, in which he repeated the grounds in his application and attached a copy of the Tribunal decision; (b)the court book filed on behalf of the Minister on 14 September 2025; and(c)an affidavit of service of Dominic Leal Smith filed on behalf of the Minister on 2 October 2025. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATIONThe role of the Court in judicial review proceedings The role of the Court in this judicial review proceeding is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality of the Tribunal decision by reference to the applicant’s complaints about that decision: Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21; [2022] FCAFC 3 (Djokovic) at [17]. The Court does not consider the merits of the Tribunal decision: Djokovic at [17]; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6 at [31]. The Court can only grant relief to the applicant if he establishes that the Tribunal decision is affected by jurisdictional error. Jurisdictional error was explained by the High Court in LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 280 CLR 321; [2024] HCA 12, where the Court said at [2]-[3] (footnotes omitted): 2.Jurisdictional error can refer to breach of an express or implied condition of a statutory conferral of decision-making authority which results in a decision made in the purported exercise of that authority lacking the legal force attributed to exercise of that authority by statute. …3.Because an express or implied condition of a statutory conferral of decision-making authority can take many different forms, and because breach can occur in many different circumstances, the categories of jurisdictional error are not closed. … Jurisdictional error on the part of a statutory decision-maker in making a decision can include: misunderstanding the applicable law; asking the wrong question; exceeding the bounds of reasonableness; identifying a wrong issue; ignoring relevant material; relying on irrelevant material; in some cases, making an erroneous finding or reaching a mistaken conclusion; or failing to observe some applicable requirement of procedural fairness. Disagreement with a decision, even emphatic disagreement, does not of itself give rise to jurisdictional error: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611; [1999] HCA 21 at [40].Procedural fairness before the TribunalThe assertion in the written ground of application that the applicant was denied procedural fairness In his ground, the applicant asserts that the Tribunal denied him procedural fairness during the review process. The basis upon which he claims he was denied procedural fairness appears to be that he filled out a questionnaire, appeared before the Tribunal and answered all questions in detail, but the Tribunal found that at various points that the applicant was not able to demonstrate what was required of him. The specific factual matters referred to by the applicant are addressed in another section of this judgment set out below. For present purposes, I observe that procedural fairness is concerned with giving a person a fair opportunity to be heard. The applicant’s disagreement with the findings of the Tribunal on the evidence presented by the applicant is not, of itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant was denied procedural fairness.