Zahoor (Migration)

The applicant, Mr Zahoor, sought judicial review of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the Minister's decision to cancel his Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500. The visa was cancelled on the grounds that Mr Zahoor had provided incorrect information in his visa application, specifically concerning his enrolment in a registered course, a lengthy gap in his studies, his marriage and family details, and his medical issues. The application for the visa had been lodged by an agent. The AAT had affirmed the cancellation decision, finding that Mr Zahoor had not satisfied the Minister that he had a genuine intention to pursue his studies and that he had made limited academic progress.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had erred in law in affirming the cancellation of Mr Zahoor's visa. This involved determining whether the AAT had properly considered all relevant evidence and applied the correct legal principles in assessing whether Mr Zahoor had provided incorrect information and whether he had a genuine intention to pursue his studies. The court also considered whether the AAT had adequately addressed the applicant's submissions regarding his medical issues and the role of his agent.

Justice Bradford found that the AAT had not erred in law. The Tribunal had carefully considered the evidence, including the applicant's inconsistent statements regarding his study plans, the significant gap in his academic history, and the circumstances surrounding his marriage. The AAT's conclusion that Mr Zahoor had not satisfied the Minister that he had a genuine intention to pursue his studies was open to it on the evidence. The Tribunal had also correctly applied the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) concerning the provision of information in visa applications and the assessment of genuine temporary entrant criteria. The court noted that the AAT was not bound by the applicant's agent's actions or representations, but rather by the applicant's own conduct and statements.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.