Siddiqui v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2025] FedCFamC2G 1506

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Siddiqui v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1506

File number(s): SYG 1524 of 2023
Judgment of: JUDGE SKAROS
Date of judgment: 12 September 2025
Catchwords:  MIGRATION – whether the Tribunal erred in finding the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant – where applicant contends that the Tribunal denied him procedural fairness and failed to consider his evidence and submissions – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed
Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 65, 359, 359AA, 360

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl 500.212

Cases cited:

LPDTv Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 418 ALR 152

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SCAR (2003) 128 FCR 553; [2003] FCAFC 126

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476

SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152; [2006] HCA 63
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 46
Date of hearing: 28 August 2025
Place: Parramatta
Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-represented litigant
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Ms Pieri, Minter Ellison
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to cots

ORDERS

SYG 1524 of 2023

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

TAFFAZ UL UDDIN AHMED SIDDIQUI

Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE SKAROS

DATE OF ORDER:

12 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application filed on 26 September 2023 is dismissed.

2.The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $5,900.

3.The name of the First Respondent is amended to ‘Minister of Immigration and Citizenship.’

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 SKAROS

  1. By application filed on 26 September 2023, the applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal[1] (the Tribunal) dated 25 August 2023. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate (the delegate) of the First Respondent (the Minister) in refusing to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary)(Class TU) visa (the visa) under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)(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…

Continue reading Siddiqui v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Siddiqui v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1506
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1506
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant him a Student (Temporary) visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant, affirming the delegate's decision not to grant the visa. The applicant argued that the Tribunal denied him procedural fairness, failed to consider his evidence and submissions, and made an error in concluding he was not a genuine temporary entrant.

The central legal issue was whether the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in affirming the delegate’s decision. The court had to determine if the Tribunal identified a wrong issue, ignored relevant material, relied on irrelevant material, made an erroneous finding, or failed to observe procedural fairness. The court also needed to decide if the Tribunal correctly assessed the applicant’s evidence and submissions.

The court found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal had provided the applicant with information from the Provider Registration International Student Management System (PRISMS) database and invited him to respond to the concerns raised. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s responses and evidence about his ties to India, his current employment, and his immigration history. The court held that the Tribunal had complied with procedural fairness obligations and properly considered the applicant’s evidence. The court concluded that the Tribunal’s decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the applicant’s circumstances and did not amount to a jurisdictional error.

The applicant’s application for judicial review was dismissed. The court found no grounds for the Court to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision. The applicant was not entitled to relief as the Tribunal had not made a jurisdictional error in its decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

By application filed on 26 September 2023, the applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal[1] (the Tribunal) dated 25 August 2023. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate (the delegate) of the First Respondent (the Minister) in refusing to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary)(Class TU) visa (the visa) under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)(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 applicant is a citizen of India. He first arrived in Australia on 9 July 2018 as the holder of a student visa. He was granted the initial student visa on 27 June 2018, which was valid until 30 September 2025, on the basis of his enrolment in a Master of Professional Accounting at Federation University Australia. The applicant did not complete this course. He enrolled in several courses relating to hospitality. He completed a Certificate III in Security Operations from 12 April 2019 to 31 May 2019. On 30 September 2020, the applicant applied for a student visa onshore. On 10 March 2022, the delegate refused to grant the applicant a student visa as they were not satisfied the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant. Accordingly, the delegate found the applicant did not satisfy clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations). On 18 March 2022, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision. On 3 May 2023, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant's authorised recipient, pursuant to s 359 of the Act, inviting him to provide information, as requested, in the "Request for Student Visa Information" form, for which a link was provided in the invitation letter. The applicant responded to this request and provided further information to the Tribunal. On 26 July 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear before it to give evidence and present arguments on 24 August 2023. The applicant attended the hearing and was assisted by an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages. On 25 August 2023, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the student visa. THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION The issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied cl 500.212(a) of the Regulations and was a genuine temporary applicant for entry and stay as a student. The Tribunal extracted cl 500.212 of the Regulations and noted that it was required to have regard to the specified factors in Ministerial Direction No. 69. The Tribunal recorded that it put to the applicant information from his Provider Registration International Student Management System (PRISMS) database pursuant to s 359AA of the Act: at [20]. The Tribunal put to the applicant the relevance of the information and its concerns: at [21]. Relevantly, the Tribunal put to the applicant its concerns: the applicant only completed one course which related to his work as a security guard in Australia; his other CoE’s were cancelled due to unsatisfactory attendance and non-payment of fees; there were discrepancies between the applicant’s oral evidence and PRISMS records regarding his enrolment history; he had a gap of seventeen months between his cancelled enrolments and his eventual enrolment in the Diploma of Project Management.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

On 25 August 2023, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the student visa. THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION The issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied cl 500.212(a) of the Regulations and was a genuine temporary applicant for entry and stay as a student. The Tribunal extracted cl 500.212 of the Regulations and noted that it was required to have regard to the specified factors in Ministerial Direction No. 69. The Tribunal recorded that it put to the applicant information from his Provider Registration International Student Management System (PRISMS) database pursuant to s 359AA of the Act: at [20]. The Tribunal put to the applicant the relevance of the information and its concerns: at [21]. Relevantly, the Tribunal put to the applicant its concerns: the applicant only completed one course which related to his work as a security guard in Australia; his other CoE’s were cancelled due to unsatisfactory attendance and non-payment of fees; there were discrepancies between the applicant’s oral evidence and PRISMS records regarding his enrolment history; he had a gap of seventeen months between his cancelled enrolments and his eventual enrolment in the Diploma of Project Management. The Tribunal also put to the applicant its concern regarding the timing of his enrolment in the Diploma of Project Management as it considered the applicant had done so primarily to meet the enrolment condition and obtain a successful student visa outcome, rather than because of a genuine interest in this course of study: at [22]. The Tribunal noted the applicant’s response that he understood the information put to him and summarised his explanation regarding the issues raised: at [23]–[25]. The Tribunal recorded the applicant’s evidence regarding his personal ties to India, his current work in Australia, and his immigration history: at [26]–[29]. The Tribunal put additional concerns to the applicant, including concerns about his possession of a higher qualification (a bachelor’s degree) from India, whether his employment in Australia may act as an incentive to remain in Australia and concern regarding the length of his stay. The Tribunal noted it gave the applicant an opportunity to respond to each of these concerns: at [30]. At [32]–[36], the Tribunal considered the evidence before it in respect of the applicant’s circumstances in his home country. It accepted that the applicant had personal ties to India, including the presence of his parents, two brothers and fiancé. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant's father has a catering business which may provide employment or business opportunities for the applicant in the future. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s personal, family, community and potential employment ties served as a significant incentive to return to his home country. Having regard to his employment history in Australia and potential earnings in his father’s business in India, the Tribunal expressed concern that the applicant's economic circumstances in Australia may serve as an incentive for him not to return to India.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The applicant was guided through his application and was invited to make oral submissions in support of the grounds of review raised in the application, which he did. CONSIDERATION As explained to the applicant at the hearing, 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, 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 The grounds of review advanced in the application (without alteration) are:1. While I appreciate the lengthy decision by the Tribunal I continue to believe that the Member failed to accord me natural justice and fairness and failed to accept that I have a genuine intention to remain temporarily in Australia and failed to consider my compelling and compassionate circumstances and failed to allow me to study as per the confirmation of enrolment provided.2. The Tribunal had before it my economic circumstances, my desire to join my father's business yet failed to consider that I intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.3. The documentation provided should lead the Tribunal to accept my genuine intention and allow me to study. In oral submissions, the applicant said he submitted documents to the Tribunal which demonstrated he was a genuine temporary entrant. He informed the Tribunal that he got engaged and that his fiancé was waiting for him in India. His intention was to complete his studies so he could return to India and take over his father’s business. The applicant said the Tribunal had completely failed to look at the documents he provided and did not consider the evidence. Ground one By ground one, the applicant contends that the Tribunal had denied him procedural fairness. He also contends that the Tribunal failed to consider his circumstances, his enrolment in a course and that he only intended to remain in Australia temporarily. The Minister contends that the Tribunal complied with its procedural fairness obligations under Division 5 of Part 5 of the Act, which is an exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule.