Thanthrige v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1024
•2 July 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Thanthrige v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1024
File number(s): MLG 1356 of 2019 Judgment of: JUDGE GERRARD Date of judgment: 2 July 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – student visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – irrationality – whether the Tribunal misunderstood cl 500.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s circumstances and genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed. Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 359A, 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
Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21
DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
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
Rokovuki v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 282
SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294
SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 68 Date of last submission/s: 8 May 2025 Date of hearing: 27 May 2025 Place: Adelaide Applicant: Self-represented with the assistance of a Sinhalese interpreter Counsel for the First Respondent: Ruby Adler Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
MLG 1356 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: SANDUN RANAMAYURA WAHALA THANTHRIGE
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE GERRARD
DATE OF ORDER:
2 JULY 2025
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
The applicant seeks 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 him a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (the visa). As will be explained, for the applicant to succeed in this Court, he must establish that the Tribunal decision contains a jurisdictional error. The Court cannot undertake a review of the merits of the decision under review.
For the reasons set out below, the Court has not found any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. On that basis, the application cannot succeed.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka (Court Book (CB) 11). He first arrived in Australia on 6 May 2013 as the holder of a student (subclass 573) visa (CB 46). He has remained in Australia on student visas since that time, save for an application for a partner visa which was subsequently withdrawn (CB 46, 119-120).
On 15 March 2017, the applicant applied for the student visa which is the subject of this decision (CB 10-25). In that application, he indicated that he intended to study a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery (CB 19). He provided a written statement and other documents in support of his application (CB 30-36). He also appointed a registered migration agent as his authorised recipient in his application (CB 27-29).
On 7 August 2017, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant the visa. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant criterion in cl 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) (CB 44-48). 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;
…
On 17 August 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision without the assistance of his migration agent (CB 49-50).
On 11 January 2019, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide further information in a “Request for Student Visa Information” form (the request form) by 25 January 2019 (CB 55-56). 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 57-61).
On 24 January 2019, the applicant provided various documents and information in response to the Tribunal’s invitation (CB 64-76).
On 11 February 2019, the applicant was invited to attend a hearing scheduled for 1 March 2019 (CB 78-80).
On 28 February 2019, the applicant appointed a new registered migration agent as his authorised recipient (CB 85-87), who provided a number of documents in support of the review application, as well as a ‘Response to hearing invitation’ (CB 88-106).
On 1 March 2019, the applicant attended the Tribunal hearing with his migration agent (CB 107).
On 9 April 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant the visa (CB 117-128).
On 6 May 2019, the applicant 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
To obtain assistance from this Court, the applicant must show that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. It is thus useful to outline the Tribunal’s decision in some detail.
The Tribunal began by identifying the visa under review, noting that the applicant applied for the visa on 15 March 2017. The Tribunal observed that, at the time of application, the visa contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant 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]).
The Tribunal explained that a delegate of the Minister had refused to grant the applicant the visa as the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily (as required by cl 500.212(a) in Schedule 2 of the Regulations) (at [3]). The Tribunal then set out the legislative requirements in that regard (at [7]-[8]).
The Tribunal stated that, it was required to have regard to Direction 69 in considering whether the applicant satisfied cl 500.212(a) (at [9]). 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]).
The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 March 2019 to give evidence and present arguments (at [4]). The applicant was also assisted by his migration agent at the hearing, who made submissions on his behalf (at [5]).
The Tribunal then set out the applicant’s immigration history, namely, that he arrived in Australia in May 2013 after having already successfully completed an Advanced Diploma of AutoCAD and Quantity Surveying, and a Certificate and Advanced Certificate in the English language, between October 2008 and February 2012 in Sri Lanka. During these studies, he also worked as a trainee/assistant quantity surveyor between September 2010 and July 2012 (at [11]).
The Tribunal set out that, in April 2013, the applicant was granted a student visa to undertake a packaged course at Holmesglen Institute of TAFE, consisting of English for Study Skills, a Diploma of Building and Construction, and a Bachelor of Building Surveying. He successfully completed the English course in June 2013, and the Diploma of Building and Construction from July 2013 to December 2014. He did not commence the Bachelor of Building Surveying as anticipated in February 2015, and this course was cancelled due to non-payment of fees. The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that his parents’ marriage breakdown some months prior had caused him financial hardship (at [12]).
The Tribunal then set out that the applicant enrolled in a Diploma of Accounting and Bachelor of Accounting, but this too was cancelled in May 2016 due to non-payment of fees. In November 2015, after having recently married, the applicant lodged a partner visa application which was subsequently withdrawn after a breakdown of the marriage. In February 2017, the applicant commenced a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery, which he completed in 2018, and in March 2017 applied for a student visa to continue his studies in a package course of a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, and a Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management. These courses were expected to finish in May 2019 and January 2021, respectively (at [13]).
Against this background, the Tribunal made the following findings.
The Tribunal observed that the applicant has made distinct changes to his study and proposed career objectives numerous times, from quantity surveying, to accounting, to cookery. The Tribunal found that the changes from distinct areas of learning and type of work cast doubt on the value of the courses and associated career plans previously held by the applicant (at [14]).
The Tribunal considered the applicant’s completed request form. In paragraph 16 of that form, the applicant answered that his interest to study cooking developed through him cooking Sri Lankan cuisine during his marriage, and his wife being positively surprised with his cooking skills, as well as many of his friends admiring his cooking. The Tribunal found this to be at least exaggerated (at [15]).
The Tribunal noted the applicant’s representative’s evidence that the applicant had initially come to study a building related course, but his financial circumstances changed which meant he pursued a different path of study. The Tribunal recognised that reasonable changes can occur in an applicant’s study path such that one can be considered a genuine temporary entrant despite a change in study focus. However, the Tribunal considered that the applicant’s conduct displays a pattern of change which is now a clear trend going beyond the reasonable changes to career or study pathways as considered by Direction 69 (at [17]). The Tribunal considered that if the applicant intended to stay in Australia temporarily, he would not have been so quick to dismiss each successive area of study, and rather, would have committed to one or other of the earlier established career ambitions (at [18]).
As identified by the delegate in their decision on 7 August 2017, the Tribunal observed that the applicant was not enrolled in a course of study for two periods totalling more than 13 months between the cancellation of his Bachelor of Building Surveying in April 2015 and the commencement of his Certificate III in Commercial Cookery in February 2017 (at [19]).
When asked by the Tribunal about enrolling in the Diploma of Accounting and Bachelor of Accounting in 2015, the applicant stated this was to ensure he was enrolled in a course of study so as to keep his student visa. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s failure to remain enrolled to study, and his enrolling in a course he did not intend to complete, to suggest that he is using the student visa program as a means to maintain ongoing residence in Australia rather than to remain on a genuinely temporary basis (at [20]).
In the request form, the Tribunal noted the applicant’s response at paragraph 21 that he had last seen his brother and father in May 2013, which it observed did not appear to provide a reason to return home. At paragraph 22, the applicant stated he speaks to his mother and siblings every day, and that he is engaged to a partner in Sri Lanka. Further, paragraph 8 sets out that he returned home in October 2018 for 34 days to discuss his engagement arrangements with his new partner (at [21]). The Tribunal found that the applicant has been able to manage his personal relations overseas throughout his substantial stay in Australia, and has spent little time outside of Australia since his arrival in 2013. The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant’s personal connections overseas serve as a significant incentive to return to Sri Lanka, and his lack of travel to Sri Lanka suggests he is not genuinely staying temporarily in Australia (at [22]).
The Tribunal noted the applicant’s uncle, who the applicant claimed is an Australian citizen, provided a letter in support of the application for review dated 26 February 2019. In this letter, his uncle stated that the applicant “…has been getting all the relevant necessities including his course fees, travelling, foods by us from 2017 and we would love to help him more until he will get stable from current condition”. The Tribunal spoke to the applicant’s uncle over the phone at the hearing, who said that the applicant was studying cookery but he was not sure of his study plans or what he intended to do after his studies, and that it was the applicant’s intention to return to Sri Lanka once he had completed his studies. The Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s uncle’s evidence to be adverse for s 359A purposes (at [23]).
The Tribunal considered that the applicant’s economic circumstances in Australia, specifically his capacity to earn Australian dollars in any ordinary employment, together with his aunt and uncle’s financial support, presents a significant incentive for him not to return to Sri Lanka (at [24]).
The Tribunal noted the applicant did not express any intention to promptly finish his current course in order to return home to live with his partner. Given the applicant intended to complete his final course, a Diploma of Hospitality Management, in January 2021, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant’s relationship provided him with a significant incentive to return home. The Tribunal highlighted its concerns that the applicant is using the student visa program to maintain ongoing residence in Australia (at [25]).
The Tribunal made no findings concerning the applicant’s immigration history outside of Australia, as the applicant did not declare a visa history outside of Australia or Sri Lanka (at [27]).
When asked by the Tribunal, the applicant did not declare that there was any military, political or civil unrest that may induce him to apply for a visa as a means of remaining in Australia indefinitely (at [28]).
The Tribunal was ultimately not satisfied the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as required by cl 500.212 (at [29]). Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the criteria for the grant of a Student (Subclass 500) visa were not met (at [30]).
The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa (at [6], [31]).
APPLICATION TO THIS COURT
On 6 May 2019, the applicant filed an application for judicial review. However, the applicant then filed an amended application for judicial review on 30 April 2024, which contains the following grounds of review:
1.I would like to submit that the review decision by AAT of my visa refusal, subclass 500 Vocational Education and Training Sector is incorrect. I have enrolled in study courses most of the time I had a genuine progress of my studies and I have genuine sponsor to complete my studies in Australia which I would like to explain to the honourable court.
2.I believe there is serious jurisdictional error involved in the decision hence the case should be taken to the Honourable Court for its consideration.
3.I would like to attend a hearing before the Honourable Court, so that the relevant facts involved in the case could be presented in detail to the court for its decision.
The decision of the AAT is affected by jurisdictional error
Particulars
a. The tribunal has erred in law that the Applicant has not met the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.
b. The tribunal has failed to take into account the following relevant factors:
(i)The applicant has completed a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery;
(ii) The applicant applied for a student visa to continue his studies in a packaged course consisting of a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and a Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management;
(iii)The tribunal whilst recognising that reasonable changes can occur in an Applicant’s study path, then wrongly concluded that his conduct displays a pattern of change which goes beyond the reasonable changes to career or study paths;
(iv) The tribunal should have taken into account his intention of qualifying as a chef and then returning to Sri Lanka to be employed as a chef in the hospitality industry in his country which is a prime tourist attraction as detailed in a submission dated 27 February 2019 to the member of the AAT, which detailed his genuine intention to study and temporarily stay in Australia & a detailed submission, headed “Genuine temporary entrant criterion and Statement of purpose” which was submitted with his application in 2017
c. The tribunal has not given proper consideration as to whether he intended genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
The applicant filed an affidavit with his original judicial review application on 6 May 2019, which annexed a copy of the Tribunal’s decision. However, the applicant also filed a document accompanying his amended application on 30 April 2024 titled ‘My Contentions of Fact & Law’ which ultimately expand on the grounds sought. The Court takes this to be the applicant’s written submissions.
The applicant appeared before the Court on 27 May 2025 without legal representation but with the assistance of a Sinhalese interpreter. The Court confirmed with the applicant that he had received copies of the Court Book and the Minister’s written submissions.
The materials before the Court include the amended application for judicial review filed on 30 April 2024, the supporting affidavit filed on 6 May 2019 (the affidavit being taken as read and in evidence at the hearing on 27 May 2025), a Court Book numbering 128 pages (marked as Exhibit 1), written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant on 30 April 2025, and written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 8 May 2025.
The applicant was 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, Rokovuki v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 282 at [41]. Accordingly, at the hearing of this matter, the applicant was invited to tell the Court what he believed to be wrong with the Tribunal’s decision and/or procedure.
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 (Wu Shan Liang)) 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);
(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; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at 648; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437 at 445).
However, it was also explained to the applicant that this was not an exhaustive list and he should attempt to tell the Court what he said the Tribunal did wrong.
Against this background, the applicant told the Court that the Tribunal did not consider the report provided by his migration agent in considering his circumstances when his student visa was cancelled after a failure to pay his course fees.
CONSIDERATION
The application for judicial review is set out above. Whilst containing specificity, the application does not identify recognisable grounds of jurisdictional error. This is not uncommon with self-represented applicants, and the Court recognises the difficulties litigants-in-person often have in articulating jurisdictional error. Having regard to this, the Court has endeavoured to interpret the application as broadly as possible (as per the principles in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392). In this respect, the Court was greatly assisted by the Minister’s summary of the ‘grounds’ which emanated from the application. The Court accepts the following summary as accurate and has adopted those grounds in its consideration of the complaints the applicant has raised in respect of the Tribunal’s decision:
•The Tribunal’s decision is incorrect because the applicant had enrolled in courses, had genuinely progressed his studies, and had genuinely intended to complete his studies in Australia (ground 1);
•The Tribunal erred in law in finding the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa (ground 2);
•The Tribunal failed to take into account that the applicant had completed a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery, that he had applied for the visa to continue his studies in a packaged course, and that he intended to qualify as a chef and return to Sri Lanka to work as a chef there. The Tribunal also wrongly concluded that the applicant’s conduct displayed a ‘pattern of change’ (ground 3);
•The Tribunal did not properly consider whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily (ground 4). In his written submissions, the applicant also says that the Tribunal did not properly consider his statement to it dated 27 February 2019, and the ‘statement of purpose’ that accompanied his visa application in 2017.
Ground one
Ground one appears to allege that the Tribunal’s decision was irrational in light of the fact that the applicant had enrolled in courses, genuinely progressed his studies, and genuinely intended to complete his studies.
The applicant submitted, in his written submissions, that the Tribunal failed to take into account the following factors:
(a)that he had completed a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery;
(b)that he applied for a student visa to continue his studies in a packaged course; and
(c)his intention of qualifying as a chef and returning to Sri Lanka to work in the hospitality industry.
The applicant therefore contended that, whilst the Tribunal recognised reasonable changes can occur in an applicant’s study path, it wrongly concluded that his conduct displayed a pattern of change beyond reasonable changes to his career or study path.
In finding that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant, the Tribunal did not dispute that he had been enrolled in courses. The Tribunal relied upon various matters in reaching its conclusion, which include:
(a)that the applicant had made distinct changes to his areas of study numerous times, which it considered displayed a ‘pattern of change’ suggesting he did not intend to stay in Australia temporarily;
(b)the applicant’s capacity to earn Australian dollars and be financially supported by his aunt and uncle;
(c)his ability to maintain personal relationships in Sri Lanka whilst he remained in Australia;
(d)his failure to remain enrolled in a course of study over a combined period of 13 months; and
(e)his evidence that he had enrolled in a Diploma and Bachelor of Accounting purely to retain his visa.
The Court accepts that the matters taken into account by the Tribunal provided a logical and rational basis for the ultimate finding that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant. There is otherwise nothing arbitrary in how the Tribunal reasoned to reach this conclusion.
No jurisdictional error arises in respect of ground one.
Ground two
Ground two contends that the Tribunal misunderstood the legislative criteria, namely, cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The applicant was unable to explain or elaborate on how the Tribunal misunderstood cl 500.212, save for his particularisation of factors that he claimed the Tribunal did not take into account, and its ultimate conclusion that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant.
The Tribunal accurately recorded the criteria it was required to assess, being cl 500.212, at [8] of its reasons. The Tribunal also correctly understood that it was required to apply the considerations set out in Direction 69, which it understood was intended only to guide decision makers when considering an applicant’s circumstances as a whole. It is otherwise apparent from a reading of the Tribunal’s reasons that it understood it was required to determine whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, pursuant to cl 500.212(a). In carrying out that task, it correctly applied the considerations in Direction 69 that were relevant to its decision. No error is therefore evident in the Tribunal’s approach.
No jurisdictional error arises in respect of ground two.
Ground three
Ground three contends that the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s course progression and study intentions.
In written submissions, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal wrongly concluded that his conduct displayed a pattern of change beyond reasonable changes to his career or study path, despite acknowledging that reasonable changes can occur in an applicant’s study path.
However, this finding was ultimately open to the Tribunal. In its decision, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had completed a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery, and that he had applied for the visa to continue his studies in the packaged course consisting of the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and the Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management.
While the Tribunal did not expressly refer to the applicant’s stated intention of working as a chef in Sri Lanka, it had regard to his response to the invitation in which he gave details about that intention, and otherwise accepted that his proposed career objectives related to cookery. In those circumstances, and noting that the Tribunal’s findings depended principally on the applicant’s numerous changes in courses, his failure to maintain enrolment, and his incentives to remain in Australia, the Court does not infer that the Tribunal overlooked the applicant’s evidence about his stated career intention. Instead, the Court finds that the Tribunal considered that evidence but did not find it to be material.
No jurisdictional error arises in respect of ground three.
Ground four
Ground four alleges that the Tribunal did not properly consider whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily.
The applicant contended in written submissions before this Court that his submission to the Tribunal dated 27 February 2019 (the 2019 submissions), which detailed his genuine intention to study and temporarily stay in Australia, was not given proper consideration by the Tribunal.
The Court does not accept that the Tribunal did not properly consider the matters raised in the 2019 submissions and the ‘statement of purpose’ accompanying his visa application. The Tribunal recorded several of the matters set out in the 2019 submissions, including the applicant’s evidence about his partner visa application and its subsequent withdrawal, and the fact that he was financially supported by his aunt and uncle, which was corroborated by a letter from his uncle attached to the 2019 submissions. Insofar as the Tribunal did not expressly reference the applicant’s stated intention to work as a chef in the hospitality industry in Sri Lanka as set out in the 2019 submissions and statement of purpose, the Tribunal did not consider this to be material.
The statement of purpose contained a chronology of the applicant’s migration and study history in Australia, general assertions about his intention to work in hospitality management in Sri Lanka, his reasons for studying in Australia, and his parents’ circumstances in Sri Lanka. The Tribunal had regard in its reasons to the applicant’s more current evidence relating to several of these matters. While it did not expressly mention the applicant’s stated reasons for studying in Australia or his parents’ assets in Sri Lanka, having regard to the strength of its findings about his numerous enrolments in different areas of study, and the fact that his circumstances in Sri Lanka had not motivated him to return home, it is apparent the Tribunal did not consider these matters rose to such a level of importance to warrant specific reference in its reasons. In doing so, there was no error in the Tribunal’s approach.
No jurisdictional error arises in respect of ground four.
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’s decision.
The Court is satisfied that, even adopting the broad approach referred to in [44] of these reasons, no jurisdictional error is apparent.
CONCLUSION
The application for judicial review, supporting affidavit and additional submissions advanced by the applicant have failed to identify any jurisdictional error. The Court is otherwise unable to identify any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding sixty-eight (68) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gerrard. Associate:
Dated: 2 July 2025
0
17
2