Raval v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2025] FedCFamC2G 1441

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Raval v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1441

File number(s): SYG 875 of 2024
Judgment of: JUDGE SKAROS
Date of judgment: 4 September 2025
Catchwords:  MIGRATION – Judicial Review – Where Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) affirmed the decision not to grant applicants student visas as it found the applicant did not satisfy PIC 4020 – application dismissed
Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 65, 359B, 359, 359C, 363A, 379A, 379C   

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Sch 2 cl 500.217 

Cases cited:

Hasran v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 183 FCR 413; [2010] FCAFC 40

He v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 568

Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 269 FCR 464; [2019] FCAFC 53

LPDTv Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 418 ALR 152; [2024] HCA 12 

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421; [2019] HCA 3  

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI [2009] HCA 39; (2009) 83 ALJR 1123

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

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476; [2003] HCA 2  Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 261 FCR 556; [2018] FCAFC 52

Trivedi v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42; 220 FCR 169

Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 54
Date of hearing: 18 August 2025
Place: Parramatta
Solicitor for the Applicants: Self-represented litigants
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr Fyfe, Minter Ellison
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs

ORDERS

SYG 875 of 2024

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

PURVIBEN KULDIPKUMAR RAVAL

First Applicant

KULDIPKUMAR ARVINDBHAI RAVAK

Second Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE SKAROS

DATE OF ORDER:

4 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application filed on 1 May 2024 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(h) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE SKAROS

INTRODUCTION 

  1. By application filed on 1 May 2024, the applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal)[1] dated 3 April 2024. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate (the delegate) of the First Respondent (the Minister) refusing to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

    [1] The Court…

Continue reading Raval v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Raval v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1441
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1441
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, citizens of India, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's refusal to grant them Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas. The primary issue was whether the applicant met the Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) for the grant of the visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet PIC 4020 as she did not provide satisfactory evidence to counter the Department's finding that her Bachelor of Business Administration degree was non-genuine. The Tribunal concluded that there were no compelling circumstances justifying the waiver of PIC 4020 requirements.

The court considered whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by a jurisdictional error. The applicant argued that she had not breached the visa requirements and that she should be granted the visa based on her compelling and compassionate circumstances. However, the court found that the Tribunal had provided the applicant with opportunities to respond to the Department's preliminary findings and had invited her to provide information or make submissions. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's invitation, resulting in the Tribunal losing the entitlement to a hearing. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by a jurisdictional error and dismissed the application.

The court further noted that it was not for the Court to review the merits of the Tribunal's decision. The applicant's submission that she used an agent in India was not substantiated, as the visa application indicated that she submitted the application herself and there was no record of any agent acting on her behalf. The court found that the Tribunal's decision was based on the applicant's failure to provide satisfactory evidence to counter the Department's findings and that there were no compelling circumstances justifying the waiver of PIC 4020 requirements.

The application was dismissed with no orders for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

By application filed on 1 May 2024, the applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal)[1] dated 3 April 2024. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate (the delegate) of the First Respondent (the Minister) refusing to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).[1] The Court notes that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has been superseded by the Administrative Review Tribunal. Item 10, Part 2 of Schedule 16 to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 provides that for any proceedings that were pending in any court or tribunal immediately before the transition time and to which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was a party, the Administrative Review Tribunal is, after the transition time, substituted for the Tribunal as a party to the proceedings. BACKGROUND The first and second applicants are citizens of India. The first applicant (the applicant) applied for the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (the visa), the subject of these proceedings, on 14 October 2021. The second applicant is the first applicant’s spouse, and he was included in the application as a member of the family unit. The applicant declared in her application that she had completed a Bachelor of Business Administration at Saurashtra University in India and provided a ‘statement of marks.’ On 8 February 2022, the Minister had information suggesting that the applicant’s qualification was ‘non-genuine’ and considered that she may have provided false or misleading information. On 19 January 2023, the Department invited the applicant to comment on information regarding her student visa application. The Department noted that investigations undertaken by a Departmental officer found that the applicant’s Bachelor from University was non-genuine. The Department invited the applicant to respond within 28 days. The applicant did not respond to the letter dated 19 January 2023, inviting the applicant to comment upon the Minister’s preliminary investigation. On 20 March 2023, the delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl. 500.217 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied the applicant met the Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020). On 7 April 2023, the applicants applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision. The applicants did not nominate an authorised recipient. On 6 March 2024, the Tribunal sent an invitation under s 359 of the Act to the applicants at their nominated email address requesting they provide in writing all documents which they intend to rely on in their application for review by 20 March 2024. The Tribunal noted that if it did not receive the information within the allowed period (subject to any extensions), that they would lose any entitlement they may have under the Act to appear before the Tribunal at a hearing.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

On 3 April 2024, the Tribunal made a decision affirming the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicants the visas. THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION The dispositive issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the PIC 4020 criterion as required by cl 500.217 for the grant of the visa. The Tribunal summarised the relevant background to the matter and explained why the applicants were no longer entitled to a hearing; they did not respond to the Tribunal's invitation made under s 359(2) within the prescribed period and no extension was sought. Consequently, s 359C applied and, pursuant to s 363A, the applicants had no entitlement to a hearing: at [3]–[4]. The Tribunal summarised the applicable law and the issues to be determined: at [6]–[10]. The Tribunal also summarised the background to the application including the declaration that the applicant had completed a Bachelor of Business Administration at Saurashtra University and provided a ‘statement of marks’: [12]–[17]. The Tribunal noted that, on 8 February 2022, the Minister had investigated the applicant’s claim that she had completed a Bachelor of Business Administration and concluded that the qualification was ‘non-genuine’ and may amount to false and misleading information. The Tribunal also noted the applicant had been invited on two occasions to provide evidence or make submissions that the information regarding her previous academic qualifications was not false or misleading information and that the applicant had not done so. In the absence of any contradictory information, the uncontradicted preliminary conclusion by the Department was accepted by the Tribunal: at [18]. At [19], the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s prior academic history was relevant to the assessment of whether the applicant should be granted a student visa, and whether she was a genuine student and genuine temporary entrant. At [20] to [21] of its decision, the Tribunal found that the information pertaining to the applicant’s academic qualification was false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the visa application: as defined in PIC 4020(5). The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet PIC 4020(1). The Tribunal then considered whether the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should be waived. It noted at [25], that neither the applicant ‘nor her representative’ had identified a basis for PIC 4020(1) or (2) to be waived. The Tribunal’s reference to a ‘representative’ appears to be in error as there is no record of the applicant being represented before the Tribunal in relation to the review. The Tribunal concluded at [26] that it was not satisfied there were compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affected the interests of an Australian citizen, permanent resident or New Zealand citizen which justified granting the visa. It concluded, at [27], that the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should not be waived.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The applicant was guided through her application and invited to make oral submissions in support of the ground of review raised in the application, which she did.  CONSIDERATION  The Court can only grant relief if it can be established that the decision of the Tribunal is affected by a jurisdictional error: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476.  In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421 (SZMTA) at [81], the High Court, per Nettle and Gordon JJ explained that:   The categories of jurisdictional error are not closed. Jurisdictional error by a statutory decision-maker includes identifying a wrong issue; asking the wrong question; ignoring relevant material; relying on irrelevant material; in some cases, making an erroneous finding or reaching a mistaken conclusion; and failing to observe some applicable requirement of procedural fairness.  To constitute jurisdictional error, the error must be material, in the sense that it could have realistically deprived the applicant of the opportunity of a successful outcome: SZMTA at [2]; LPDTv Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 418 ALR 152 at [32].  Further, as explained to the applicant at the hearing, it is not for the Court to review the merits of the Tribunal decision: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.  GROUNDS OF REVIEW  One ground of review is advanced in the application (without alteration): 1.Administrative Appeals Tribunal had not acted in the best interest of the applicant (procedural fairness issue) as mentioned in affidavit attached here with. The applicant submitted that she had not breached cl 500.217, she requested that due consideration be given to her compelling and compassionate circumstances and said when her visa from India was lodged the agent had attached documents of which she was not aware. She said she had her original documents with her which she could provide. At the hearing, I discussed with the applicant the reasons, as set out in the Tribunal’s decision, for why the Tribunal decided to proceed to a decision on the review without inviting her to a hearing: she had not responded to the Tribunal’s invitation to provide the information requested. In view of this, I asked the applicant why she thought the Tribunal had not provided her with procedural fairness. The applicant said, when she received the email from Immigration that her documents were fake, she was scared and tried to contact the people in India who assisted her with the documents. She said she tried to contact them by email and phone, but they did not respond to her. She said at that time she had already completed her studies in Australia, had paid all her course fees and attended classes regularly. In relation to her submission that she used an agent in India, I observed that the visa application document indicated that she submitted the application, the subject of the review, herself and there was no record of any agent acting on her behalf: CB 25. The applicant said she provided the correct documents but was not sure what had been done with them.