Rani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Case •

[2024] FedCFamC2G 1348

•

11 December 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Rani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1348

File number(s): ADG 159 of 2021
Judgment of: JUDGE GERRARD
Date of judgment: 11 December 2024 
Catchwords: MIGRATION – Student visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – consideration of the genuine temporary entrant criterion – whether Tribunal failed to have regard to the applicant’s circumstances on an intellectual level – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed
Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Sch 2 cll 500.212, 500.212(a)

Cases cited:

BKT17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 384

Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCR 352

CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 253 FCR 496, [2016] FCAFC 146

Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163

DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 258 FCR 175, [2018] FCAFC 2

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

DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784

Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547, [1998] FCA 1126

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437; [2014] FCAFC 1

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332

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

MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392

SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294; [2005] HCA 24

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 952

SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80

Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 57
Date of last submission/s: 8 August 2024
Date of hearing: 19 November 2024
Place: Adelaide
Applicants: Self-represented first applicant on behalf of the other applicants
Counsel for the First Respondent: Tara Rossetto
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore
Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs

ORDERS

ADG 159 of 2021

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

REKHA RANI

First Applicant

SURESH PAL

Second Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE GERRARD

DATE OF ORDER:

11 DECEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.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 GERRARD:

INTRODUCTION

  1. Ms Rani and Mr Pal (the applicants) seek judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirming an earlier decision of the first respondent (the Minister) to refuse to grant them Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas (the visas). As will be explained, for the applicants to succeed in this Court, they must establish that the Tribunal decision contains a jurisdictional error. This Court cannot undertake a review of the merits of the decision under review.

  2. For the reasons set out below, the Court has not found any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision. On that basis, the application cannot succeed.

    BACKGROUND

  3. Ms Rani is a citizen of India and first arrived in Australia in 2009 as the holder of a Student visa (Court Book (CB) 109). There is no evidence before the Court as to when Mr Pal first arrived in Australia.

  4. On 18 April 2019, the applicants applied for Student visas (CB 1-35). In that visa application, Ms Rani indicated that she was enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Business with an expected completion date of May 2020 (CB 112). Since her arrival in Australia, she has completed the following courses (CB 43-44):

    ·Certificate III in Hairdressing, completed in March 2011;

    ·Diploma of Hairdressing Salon Management, completed in March 2012;

    ·Certificate IV in Hairdressing, completed in July 2012;

    ·Diploma of Management, completed in March 2013;

    ·Master of Professional Accounting, completed in November 2015; and

    ·Master of Accounting, completed in March 2017.

  5. On 25 June 2019, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicants the visas. The delegate was not satisfied that Ms Rani had met the genuine temporary entrant criterion in cl 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) (CB 41-47). That criterion relevantly provides:

    The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student:

    (a) having regard to:

    (i) the applicant’s circumstances; and

    (ii) the applicant’s immigration history; and

    (iii) if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant…

  6. On 12 July 2019, the applicants applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision (CB 48-49).

  7. On 21 January 2021, the Tribunal wrote to Ms Rani inviting her to provide further information in a “Request for Student Visa Information” form by 4 February 2021. The Tribunal also provided the applicant with a copy of Ministerial Direction No. 69, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’ (Direction 69) (CB 53-60).

  8. On 3 February 2021, Ms Rani provided a completed “Request for Student Visa Information” form, as well as supporting documentation (CB 61-90). In that form, she confirmed she did not complete the original Advanced Diploma of Business she had enrolled in (CB 70). However, she provided a certificate of enrolment for an Advanced Diploma of Business at another education provider, with an expected completion date of April 2022. That certificate of enrolment was created on 3 February 2021 (CB 90).

  9. On 26 February 2021, the applicants were invited to attend a hearing scheduled for 15 March 2021 (CB 91-94).

  10. On 15 March 2021, the applicants attended the hearing (CB 100).

  11. On 24 May 2021, the Tribunal provided written reasons of its decision to affirm the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicants the visas (CB 105-121).

  12. On 1 June 2021, the applicants lodged an application for judicial review in this Court. That application seeks review of the Tribunal’s decision pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

    THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

  13. To obtain assistance from this Court, Ms Rani must show that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. It is thus useful to outline the Tribunal’s decision in some detail.

  14. The Tribunal began by identifying the visa under review, noting that the applicants applied for the visas on 18 April 2019. The Tribunal observed that, at the time of application, the visa contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). However, it noted that Ms Rani had applied for the visa to study in Australia and did not make any claims to meet the criteria for the Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa (at [2]).

  15. The Tribunal explained that a delegate of the Minister had refused to grant the applicants the visas because the delegate was not satisfied that Ms Rani genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily (as required by cl 500.212 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations) (at [3]). The Tribunal explained that, consequently, Mr Pal was unable to satisfy the requirements of cl 500.311, as Ms Rani was not granted a student visa (at [4]).

  16. The Tribunal reiterated that the issue in this matter was whether Ms Rani was a genuine temporary entrant for entry and stay in Australia as a student (as required by cl 500.212(a) in Schedule 2 of the Regulations). The Tribunal set out the relevant legislative provisions in that regard (at [9]).

  17. The Tribunal stated that in considering whether the applicant satisfied cl 500.212(a), it was required to have regard to Direction 69. The Tribunal noted, however, that the factors set out in Direction 69 were not to be used as a checklist and were intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole (at [10]-[11]).

  18. Against this background, the Tribunal made the following findings.

  19. The Tribunal found that Ms Rani first arrived in Australia from India on 23 April 2009 on a Student visa (at [12]).

  20. The Tribunal set out that Ms Rani made her application for her Student (Subclass 500) visa on 18 April 2019 (at [13]). It also set out that the decision record confirmed Ms Rani had completed the following qualifications whilst in Australia (without alteration) (at [14]):

    a.a Certificate III in Hairdressing from 18 March 2010 to 18 March 2011;

    b.a Certificate IV in Hairdressing from 10 March 2011 to 10 July 2012;

    c.a Diploma of Hairdressing Salon Management undertaken from 10 March 2011 to 16 March 2012;

    d.a Diploma of Management undertaken from 16 March 2012 to 30 March 2013;

    e.a Master of Professional Accounting undertaken from 20 March 2012 to 6 November 2015; and

    f.a Master of Accounting undertaken from 16 March 2016 to 4 March 2017.

  21. The Tribunal outlined that at the time of application, Ms Rani had enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Business (at [15]).

  22. The Tribunal confirmed that on 3 February 2021, prior to the hearing, Ms Rani filed a response to the “Request for Student Visa Information” form (at [16]), as well as a confirmation of enrolment to study an Advanced Diploma of Business. It noted that the certificate of enrolment was created on 3 February 2021 and had an expected completion date of 10 April 2022 (at [17]). It also confirmed Ms Rani submitted supporting documents she intended to rely upon, including various certificates of completion, letters regarding the enrolment and completion of various courses, as well as transcripts of academic results (at [18]).

  23. The Tribunal noted that, prior to coming to Australia, Ms Rani had completed two bachelors degrees in India, namely, a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Education. It further noted that, from 1999 to 2008, she worked as a teacher earning 16,000 Indian rupees per month, equating to approximately $280 AUD per month or $3,360 AUD per annum (at [19]).

  24. The Tribunal outlined that Ms Rani has remained in Australia previously on three student visas and on a subclass 485 visa which was granted in October 2017 and concluded on 18 April 2019. It then outlined Ms Rani’s claim that, while she was in Australia on a subclass 485 visa, she worked 20 hours per week at an accounting firm and was paid $1,000 a fortnight (at [20]).

  25. The Tribunal set out Ms Rani’s claims that she wishes to complete her studies in Australia by undertaking an Advanced Diploma of Business, to provide her with the necessary skills to return to India so she could commence her own business as an accountant. It also set out her claims that she is not suitably qualified to run her own business and would not be comfortable to do so with the qualifications she has obtained. The Tribunal noted that this evidence was inconsistent with the two bachelors degrees she obtained studying in India (at [21]).

  26. The Tribunal noted that Ms Rani had enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Business in circumstances where she has previously obtained masters degrees in accounting and business-related courses, a Diploma in Management and a Diploma in Salon Management. The Tribunal also noted it was unclear how undertaking an Advanced Diploma of Business will improve her employment prospects and remuneration back in India in light of her current qualifications, as well as her work experience in an accounting office in Australia (at [22]).

  27. The Tribunal set out that, in Ms Rani’s “Request for Student Visa Information”, when asked about the details of her future plans, she answered that she was planning to become a Certified Practising Accountant (CPA) and undertake a PhD. The Tribunal then noted her claim that she is unable to study in India, observing that the only logical conclusion from this is that she wishes to undertake those studies in Australia. The Tribunal noted that the applicant believed it would take a further year to become a CPA, and a further three years to undertake a PhD, bringing her stay in Australia to mid-2026 (at [23]).

  28. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the studies Ms Rani intends to undertake in Australia, which would extend her stay to 17 years, would improve her employment prospects and remuneration in India (at [24]-[25]). In circumstances where the courses she intends to study are not complementary to each other, and her enrolment at the time is inconsistent with her level of education, the Tribunal considered that Ms Rani is using such courses to remain in Australia (at [26]-[27]). It also noted a gap of over one year in which Ms Rani had not undertaken any studies and found this to be inconsistent with the purpose of a student visa, which is to “come to this country and undertake studies in a timely fashion and then return home” (at [28]).

  29. When asked why she could not undertake a similar level business course to the Advanced Diploma of Business back in India, the Tribunal set out Ms Rani’s claims that, whilst there were courses back in India, she could not study due to her age, and study would “not be good for her in India” due to social and environmental issues. The Tribunal also outlined her claims that, having undertaken Australian qualifications, this would enable her to acquire more clients and provide her with qualifications with an international reputation which would be good for her business back in India. The Tribunal noted that Ms Rani had already obtained extensive qualifications both in Australia and India and has had ample opportunity to obtain business qualifications in Australia if she wished to obtain them (at [29]).

  30. The Tribunal did not accept Ms Rani’s claims that she would be precluded from undertaking such studies in India, and that obtaining an Australian business diploma would improve her employment prospects. The Tribunal found that she has had more than sufficient opportunity to complete the courses she wished to undertake to establish her business back in India, and so it did not accept she has reasonable motives to undertake the Advanced Diploma of Business in Australia rather than in India (at [30]).

  31. The Tribunal set out Ms Rani’s claims regarding her working history, as identified in her Response. The Tribunal found that prior to COVID-19, based on her claims, her and Mr Pal were earning over $60,000 per annum between them and found that this was “a very high level of income” (at [31]). It also set out Ms Rani’s oral evidence that the level of income potential, as well as economic conditions in Australia, are substantially higher than in India. The Tribunal found that these factors indicated a substantial financial incentive to remain in Australia rather than to return home (at [31]-[33]).

  32. In respect of assets, the Tribunal set out that Ms Rani has a house in her name in India, worth approximately AUD 500,000, and that her father has property holdings in India worth approximately AUD 4 million. It found that, whilst the assets in her own name would ordinarily provide her with an incentive to return home, it must be considered in light of her intention to continue to remain in Australia (at [34]).

  33. The Tribunal outlined Ms Rani’s evidence in respect of her ties to India. It noted that her parents and two brothers reside there, but in light of the fact that she has lived in Australia for 12 years and wishes to remain for at least four more years, the Tribunal did not accept Ms Rani has a substantial incentive to return to India (at [37]).

  34. In respect of Ms Rani’s ties to Australia, the Tribunal set out she is here with her husband who has long-standing employment as a taxi driver, and Ms Rani herself has been employed since 2018 as an accountant. It also set out that they have remained in stable accommodation, have a number of friends and have earnt a high level of income, all of which demonstrate that she has a strong incentive to remain in Australia (at [38]).

  35. The Tribunal also found that Ms Rani returning home to India on six occasions, for a total stay of approximately eight months, indicated that she intended to remain in Australia rather than return home (at [41]).

  36. Overall, the Tribunal found that, on the evidence before it, Ms Rani intends to remain in Australia permanently and maintain an ongoing residence here (at [43]). Accordingly, it was not satisfied that Ms Rani intends to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily, and so does not meet cl 500.212(a) (at [44]). Mr Pal, therefore, is unable to satisfy the requirements of cl 500.311 (at [45]).

  37. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision (at [47]).

    APPLICATION TO THIS COURT

  38. The application for judicial review filed by the applicants on 1 June 2021 contains seven grounds of review as follows (without alteration):

    1.I wish to submit my application to review my case in court as it was refused by DIBP and AAT. My student visa got rejected as both the authorities refused my study intentions as genuine.

    2.With the aim to fulfill my professional and academic needs to have future in the sector of my liking I wish to fetch the knowledge and academic qualification in Advanced Diploma of Business from Skills Australia

    3.I wish to do proposed courses to obtain a breadth of knowledge and skills in the field of modern business to get benefit from a broader range of skills that could be widely applied in the creative aspects of a business. This program will equip me with a broad range of knowledge and skills required for a diverse business prospects, entrepreneurship, innovation and new ventures in the industry, allowing me to work on the development of my business, its performance, growth, operations and services.

    4.As I see myself a business owner in near future so I want to learn how business works, to think, strategies and manage and rely on business for prosperity. By completing this course I would gain superior communication skills and have jn-depth knowledge of area of interest to run a accounting firm successfully.

    5.As studies of Business is a practical, hands-on course which develops entrepreneurial and innovative approaches to managing people, managing finances, managing projects and continuous improvement and compliance, so the course will give me the skills and knowledge to get ahead in the business world give me an edge in the workplace. It would help me in gaining expertise in various management tasks such as developing budgets, managing the performance of employees and overseeing projects at work. It would be the perfect fit as I want to kick my skills up a notch, plus a gateway into further studies.

    6.My plans after completing my studies are to open accounting business in India. I am pretty confident that my qualification from Australia would take me to high level of achievement but I have struggled mentally to reach to this stage and now I do not wish to look back but give my best shot and everything to achieve my goal.

    7.In the light of above, I make a humble request to you to consider my case most compassionately so that I can achieve my career goals.

  1. The applicants also filed an affidavit with that judicial review application on 1 June 2021, annexing a copy of the Tribunal’s decision.

  2. The applicants appeared before the Court on 19 November 2024 without legal representation. The Court confirmed with Ms Rani that she had received copies of the Court Book and the Minister’s submissions.

  3. The materials before the Court include the application for judicial review and supporting affidavit filed by the applicants on 1 June 2021 (the affidavit being taken as read and in evidence at the hearing on 19 November 2024), a Court Book numbering 121 pages (marked as Exhibit 1) and written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 8 August 2024.

  4. The applicants were not represented and the Court was thus mindful of the comments of Colvin J in DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784 at [8] and Feutrill J in BKT17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 384 at [55] that it is usually appropriate for an unrepresented applicant to be given an opportunity to explain orally the matters that are said to give rise to an appeal (or review). That sensible and appropriate course is now the standard procedure in this Court: see, by way of recent example, Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 952 at [40]. Accordingly, at the hearing of this matter on 19 November 2024, Ms Rani was invited to tell the Court what she believed to be wrong with the Tribunal’s decision and/or procedure.

  5. The Court also took some time to explain that it could not undertake a merits review of the Tribunal’s decision (Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272) and could only consider whether or not the Tribunal decision revealed jurisdictional error. The Court explained that in migration decisions such as the decision being challenged, common categories of alleged jurisdictional error include:

    (a)where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question (Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 178 (Craig));

    (b)where the decision-maker ignores relevant material (Craig at 178);

    (c)where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material (Craig at 178);

    (d)where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures (SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294 at 354-355, [2005] HCA 24 at [207]-[208]);

    (e)where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias (SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and 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) 289 FCR 21 at 27-28, [2022] FCAFC 3 at [33]; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at 648; [2010] HCA 16 at [131]; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]-[28] (Li); Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437 at 445, [2014] FCAFC 1 at [44] (Singh)).

  6. However, it was also explained to the applicants that this was not an exhaustive list and they should attempt to tell the Court what they said the Tribunal did wrong.

  7. Against this background, Ms Rani told the Court that she had applied for the visa because she wanted to undertake a PhD but at that time could not find a supervisor. Ms Rani was asked by the Court a number of times what she said was wrong with the decision of the Tribunal, but on each occasion, Ms Rani repeated that she wished to continue to study.

  8. The Court also confirmed with Ms Rani that her grounds really just set out why she wishes to study her Advanced Diploma of Business. In response, Ms Rani reiterated that more education would be useful for her to get a good job or to open her own business and that this was not considered by the Tribunal.

  9. The applicant did not make any submissions in reply to the Minister’s submissions.

    CONSIDERATION

  10. As outlined above, the application formally sets out seven grounds. However, in reality, the application does not set out grounds per se, but rather outlines the applicant’s reasons for wishing to continue to study in Australia. This is not uncommon in applications by unrepresented applicants unfamiliar with drafting legal documents. Noting the applicants were unrepresented in this matter, the Court endeavoured to interpret the applicants’ grounds as broadly as possible (as per the principles in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392). In that sense, the Court is of the view that Ms Rani, through these grounds and the brief submissions made at the hearing of this matter, argues that the Tribunal failed to properly have regard to, or engage on an intellectual level with, her future intentions to open an accounting business in India and the value of her studies to that plan.

  11. In response, the Minister submitted that the Tribunal correctly identified that the issue before it was whether Ms Rani had satisfied cl 500.212 of the Regulations, and in considering whether this was satisfied, it had to have regard to Direction 69. The Minister submitted that the factors contained in Direction 69 are to be used as a guide, rather than a checklist, and that the Tribunal correctly interpreted and clearly had regard to all of the relevant factors in Direction 69 in finding that Ms Rani did not satisfy cl 500.212. The Minister submitted that the applicant’s submissions and grounds did not rise above a request for the Court to engage in impermissible merits review.

  12. It is clear that the Tribunal was well aware of Ms Rani’s stated intentions to complete her studies in Australia and return to India and, importantly, clearly engaged in an active intellectual process with that evidence and its relation to the dispositive issue before it (Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 at [452]; Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) FCR 352 at [364]). That is evident from the Tribunal’s detailed consideration of the applicant’s evidence in relation to those plans. In this respect:

    a.The Tribunal did note her evidence that she did not think she currently held the necessary skills to commence her own accountancy business and that, in her view, the Advanced Diploma of Business would provide her with those skills. The Tribunal considered, though, that it was not clear how the Advanced Diploma of Business would improve her employment prospects given her existing qualifications in accounting, business and management.

    b.The Tribunal further considered the applicant’s evidence that she intended to become a CPA and undertake a PhD and the length of time that would require, noting that would extend her stay in Australia as a student to 17 years which the Tribunal found was extraordinarily lengthy and inconsistent with being a genuine temporary entrant.

    c.The Tribunal found that her intended courses were not complementary to her prior studies both in India and Australia, noting that the applicant had changed her career and study pathways.

    d.The Tribunal recognised that allowances should be made for reasonable changes to career and study pathways but in this matter the applicant intended on studying a short vocational course which did not build upon her higher level degrees in India and Australia.

    e.The Tribunal found that the applicant has had more than a sufficient opportunity to obtain the skill set she needs to establish a business in India.

  13. The Court is of the view that the Tribunal’s findings demonstrate an engagement with the applicant’s claims and evidence, and were clearly open on the evidence.

  14. In this respect, the Court agrees with the Minister’s submissions that Ms Rani is simply disagreeing with the conclusions that the Tribunal drew in respect of this evidence. It is, of course, entirely understandable that an applicant takes issue with the ultimate findings of a Tribunal where there is an outcome which is adverse to them. It is equally understandable that an applicant may feel that, because they disagree with the outcome, the Tribunal either did not consider or did not understand their evidence. However, in this matter, the Court finds that the Tribunal did consider and understand Ms Rani’s evidence in some detail. The Court accepts that the applicants’ request for this Court to reach a different conclusion on that evidence is ultimately an invitation to engage in merits review and, as the Minister correctly submitted, that is not something the Court can engage in.

  15. Having regard to the entirety of the Tribunal’s decision, it is clear that the Tribunal understood the relevant task before it. It considered all claims made by Ms Rani and all evidence given by her in support of those claims. Where it had concerns, those concerns were put to her and her responses were considered. All matters considered by the Tribunal were clearly relevant and there is no evidence that it failed to consider relevant material. The Tribunal’s findings in this matter were based on rational reasons that were arrived at on consideration of matters that were logically probative (CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 253 FCR 496, [2016] FCAFC 146; Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547, [1998] FCA 1126 and DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 258 FCR 175, [2018] FCAFC 2). It cannot be said that no other rational or logical decision maker could have drawn the same conclusion or arrived at the same decision (SZMDS).

  16. The Court also asked counsel for the Minister whether there were any matters which her client, who is subject to a direction to behave as a model litigant, wished to draw to the Court’s attention in terms of any concerns or doubts about the Tribunal’s decision. There were none. It is also not evident to the Court that any other potential arguable error arises in respect of the Tribunal decision.

  17. The Court is satisfied that, even adopting the broad approach referred to in [48] of these reasons, no jurisdictional error is apparent.

    CONCLUSION

  18. The application for judicial review, supporting affidavit and additional submissions advanced by the applicants at the hearing have failed to identify any jurisdictional error. The Court is otherwise unable to identify any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

  19. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding fifty-seven (57) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gerrard.

Associate:

Dated:       11 December 2024

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0