Rizwan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1411
•28 AUGUST 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Rizwan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1411
File number(s): SYG 1755 of 2023 Judgment of: JUDGE ZIPSER Date of judgment: 28 AUGUST 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – judicial review – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal refusing to grant student visa on basis of evidence that applicant gave or caused to be given bogus document in relation to visa application – applicant absent from Court hearing – dismissal for non-appearance Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 65, 476
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 13.06(1)(c), 17.05
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cls 500.212, 500.217 of Sch 2, cl 4020 of Sch 4
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 23 Date of hearing: 27 August 2025 Place: Parramatta Applicant: No appearance Solicitor for the Respondents: Ms Q Ren (HWL Ebsworth Lawyers) ORDERS
SYG 1755 of 2023 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: SHAIK JAVEED RIZWAN
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE ZIPSER
DATE OF ORDER:
28 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
2.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $5,600.
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 ZIPSER
INTRODUCTION
On 6 November 2023, the applicant filed 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 3 October 2023. 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.
For the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (Rules).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2019, the applicant, a citizen of India, arrived in Australia as the holder of a student visa.
On 12 March 2021, the applicant applied for a subclass 500 student visa. In the visa application, the applicant claimed to have completed a Diploma of Business at the Institute of Advancing Careers in January 2021. The application included a Diploma of Business certificate issued by Institute of Advancing Careers on 12 January 2021 (Diploma Certificate).
In September 2021, an officer of the Department of Home Affairs conducted checks to confirm the information provided in support of the application. The Institute of Advancing Careers advised that the Diploma Certificate was not issued by them.
On 17 August 2022, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the applicant the visa. The delegate found that the Diploma Certificate was a bogus document within the meaning of this term in s 5(1) of the Act and Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020 in Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations). It followed that the applicant did not satisfy cl 500.217 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
On 7 September 2022, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision.
On 7 August 2023, the applicant appeared at a hearing before the Tribunal by telephone to give evidence and present arguments, assisted by his representative.
On 3 October 2023, the Tribunal made a decision affirming the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant a student visa. The Tribunal found at [25] that it was “not satisfied the applicant has been able to establish he did complete the requirements for a Diploma of Business or counter the information available to the Department that the Diploma of Business certification he provided with his visa application was bogus”: at [25]. It followed that there was “evidence the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister a bogus document as defined in s 5(1)” of the Act (at [25]), and the applicant did not meet PIC 4020(1). The Tribunal, for reasons explained at [27]-[34], was not satisfied the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should be waived. It followed that the applicant did not satisfy cl 500.217(1) of Schedule 2.
PROCEEDING IN THIS COURT
Judicial review application and steps up to hearing on 27 August 2025
On 6 November 2023, the applicant filed an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The application contained the following grounds (as written):
1.My student visa was refused by the delegate. The delegate did not find me as a genuine applicant as a student
2.The department failed to consider the compelling reasons and circumstances presented to them.
3.I applied to the AAT for the merit review of my case
4.The tribunal did not consider my compelling arguments without considering them properly, its decision is affected by the jurisdictional error and was not determined according to the law as the circumstances at the time of application were not considered and were overlooked.
The applicant recorded in the application his email address for service (Applicant’s Email Address) and contact phone number (Applicant’s Phone Number).
On 5 July 2024, 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 the applicant sought to rely.
On 5 June 2025, the registry of the Court sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant’s Email Address, stating the matter was listed for a callover on 16 June 2025. On 16 June 2025, the applicant attended the callover. This suggests the applicant received and accessed emails sent to the Applicant’s Email Address up to June 2025.
On 10 July 2025, the registry of the Court sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant’s Email Address, stating the matter was listed for a hearing on 27 August 2025. The email included the time and place of the hearing.
On 13 August 2025, the first respondent’s solicitor emailed a letter to the applicant at the Applicant’s Email Address. The letter reminded the applicant of the date, time and place of the hearing and added:
If you do not attend the scheduled hearing, we will seek orders from the Court that your matter be dismissed with costs.
On 20 August 2025, my associate sent an email to the parties, including to the applicant at the Applicant’s Email Address, reminding them of the date, time and place of the hearing.
The applicant did not file a written submission or any further documents prior to the hearing.
Hearing on 27 August 2025
The hearing on 27 August 2025 commenced at 10:20 am and concluded shortly after 10:25 am. The applicant did not appear at the hearing. The matter was called outside the court room prior to the commencement of the hearing. Around 10:15 am my associate phoned the applicant on the Applicant’s Phone Number. There was no ring tone. The applicant’s phone appeared to be switched off.
At the hearing, Qi Qi Ren from HWL Ebsworth Lawyers appeared for the first respondent. She requested that the application be dismissed under r 13.06(1)(c) of the Rules.
Based on the materials referred to above, I am satisfied the applicant was aware of the date, time and place of the hearing. I agreed to Ms Ren’s request to dismiss the application under r 13.06(1)(c) of the Rules.
Re-instatement
If an event prevented the applicant from attending the hearing on 27 August 2025 and he is aggrieved that the application was dismissed in his absence, pursuant to r 17.05 of the Rules, he may apply to the Court to set aside the dismissal order and thereby re-instate the proceeding. If the applicant files and serves an application under r 17.05, he should file and serve an accompanying affidavit which provides evidence explaining the circumstances which prevented him from attending the hearing on 27 August 2025. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the applicant, a question may arise as to whether his conduct involves an abuse by the applicant of the process of the Court.
If the applicant is genuinely aggrieved that the application was dismissed in his absence and he files an application under r 17.05:
(a)He should also file and serve a written submission which seeks to identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. If the Court is not persuaded there is a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision, there may be no utility in re-instating the proceeding.
(b)The Court will endeavour to list the re-instatement application promptly for hearing. The applicant must attend the hearing.
COSTS
Ms Ren sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $5,600 which was less than the first respondent’s solicitor/client costs and less than the scale amount of $8,371.30. I consider this amount is reasonable. I will make the order.
I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser. Associate:
Dated: 28 August 2025
0
0
3