Zumbali v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1483
•9 September 2025
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Zumbali v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1483
File number(s): SYG 53 of 2024 Judgment of: JUDGE SKAROS Date of judgment: 9 September 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant under cl 500.212 – where the Tribunal did not comply with a request for written reasons within the prescribed period under s 368D(4)(b) and this does not disclose jurisdictional error under s 368D(7)(b) – where the applicant contends the Tribunal did not afford him procedural fairness – where there is no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal – application dismissed Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 65, 357A, 359, 360, 368D
Migrations Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl 500.212
Cases cited: Dhillon v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 524
Eros v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1061
Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 869
LPDTv Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 418 ALR 152
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
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
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 75 Date of hearing: 25 August 2025 Place: Parramatta Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-represented litigant Solicitor for the First Respondent: Mr Westenberg, Sparke Helmore Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
SYG 53 of 2024 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: AHMED BIN IDREES ZUMBALI
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE SKAROS
DATE OF ORDER:
9 SEPTEMBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application filed on 9 January 2024 is dismissed.
2.The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $6,500.
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
INTRODUCTION
By application filed on 9 January 2024, the applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal[1] (the Tribunal) dated 8 December 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 (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 following background is derived from information in the Court Book and the Minister’s written submissions and is not in dispute.
The applicant first arrived in Australia on 24 August 2015 as the holder of a dependent Temporary Skilled visa which was valid until 24 February 2017.
The applicant was then granted a student visa on 18 May 2017, which was valid until 25 December 2020. The visa was cancelled by a delegate of the Minister under s 116 of the Act, but it was subsequently set aside by the Tribunal on review.
On 25 December 2020, the applicant applied for the visa subject of the present proceedings. The applicant applied for the visa based on his enrolment in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and a Diploma of Hospitality Management, with respective completion dates of 29 May 2022 and 30 October 2022.
On 8 October 2021, the delegate wrote to the applicant inviting him to comment on information that may lead to his visa application being refused. The information related to the applicant’s record on the Provider Registration and International Student Management System register (PRISMS), which raised concerns about the applicant’s study history. The concerns included that he had successfully completed only one of the six courses he had enrolled in since 30 January 2017, had not completed a course since December 2017, may not have complied with condition 8202 of his previous visa because he was not enrolled in a course and he had failed to achieve satisfactory course progress, and appeared to be using the student visa program as a means of prolonging his stay in Australia. The applicant did not respond to this request.
On 23 May 2022, the delegate refused to grant the applicant the visa on the basis that he did not meet cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intended to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily.
On 11 June 2022, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision.
On 29 August 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant under s 359(2) of the Act and invited him to provide to complete a ‘Request for Student Visa Information form’ (RSVI form).
On 12 September 2023, the applicant provided the completed RSVI form and supporting documents, including Confirmations of Enrolment (CoE) and a ‘Form 1023 – Notification of incorrect answers.’
On 22 November 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing before it on 8 December 2023 by telephone. On 30 November 2023, the applicant provided a change of contact details form removing his representative.
On 8 December 2023, the applicant attended the hearing and was assisted by an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages. At the hearing, the Tribunal made an oral decision affirming the delegate’s decision.
On 21 December 2023, the applicant requested a written reduction of those reasons.
The Tribunal provided a written record of its decision on 7 February 2024.
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
The dispositive issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 500.212 of the Regulations and was a genuine temporary entrant in Australia.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate refused the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet cl 500.212. It observed that the applicant was not studying at the time of the delegate’s decision, but he had since enrolled in a package course at Excel and that it must consider the same issue the delegate.
The Tribunal outlined the background, documentary aspects, the hearing and credibility concerns arising in the matter.
At [9] of its reasons, the Tribunal recorded it had informed the applicant that his documentary evidence was deficient but no application had been made for an adjournment nor had the applicant indicated he had any other documents to provide in support of his case.
At [10], the Tribunal noted that no explanation had been given for the applicant’s failure to provide records which may have shed some light on his academic history in Australia.
At [11]–[15], the Tribunal considered the applicant a ‘frustrating witness’ as he was either unable or unwilling to answer, ‘relatively simple questions.’ The Tribunal had other credibility concerns arising from the applicant’s documentary case which undermined much of his evidence relating to his plans and intentions. The Tribunal said it was unwilling to act on the evidence given in the absence of further corroboration from more reliable sources. It noted his evidence on some topics was plausible or consistent with the objective features, and it had no difficulty in accepting it on those topics for that reason.
At [15], the Tribunal considered the applicant’s failure to provide a copy of the certificate of completion of his Diploma of Leadership and Management Course at the Kingsway Vocational Training Institute did not assist his case.
At [18], it recorded its misgivings about the applicant’s evidence in respect of the course he claimed to have completed at Kingsway, including that he had not provided a start date in the RSVI form which was usually included in a completion certificate. At [19], it noted the applicant gave oral evidence he had started that course on 10 February 2022 but that he held no CoE for this course. At [19] – [20], the Tribunal noted that at paragraph 15 of the RSVI form the applicant made no mention of the course at Kingsway despite reciting his academic history after his other enrolments were cancelled in 2021.
Before addressing the genuine temporary entrant issue, and considering the various factors in Ministerial Direction No. 69, the Tribunal noted the documents before it: at [26], [28]–[40]. In addition to documents before the Department, the Tribunal had regard to the PRISMS record and a Movement of Details Record.
Evidence and findings
The Tribunal accepted that the applicant met his wife while studying a Bachelor of Commerce at a local university in April 2015, that the applicant arrived here in August 2015 and that he began his studies in a Diploma of Business at Elite Education in early 2017, which was completed in December that year.
The Tribunal found the applicant did not study in 2018, despite there being two other courses in the Business package at Elite, which were cancelled on 31 May 2018 for non-commencement. It also accepted the applicant’s mother passed away in India on 25 September 2019.
The Tribunal also accepted the applicant’s initial Temporary (subclass 500) visa granted in May 2017 was cancelled and subsequently reinstated by the Tribunal on 14 July 2020. While the applicant enrolled in CIV studies in October 2020, his enrolment was cancelled for non-payment of fees, unsatisfactory attendance, or performance or COVID-19, as asserted by the applicant in oral evidence.
The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s explanation for cancelling travel plans to consummate his marriage with his wife: at [61]. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant provided no evidence concerning his ongoing relationship with his wife apart from asserting he wanted to complete his Excel courses and return to India to pursue a hospitality career and return to her.
While the Tribunal accepted there may be no CoE for the Leadership of Management Course at Kingsway because it was not a registered course, it had serious misgivings about the applicant’s oral evidence about this matter. Absent credible corroborative material, it was unwilling to accept that he enrolled in this course or began studies in the course on 10 February 2022; that he fulfilled the course requirements and completed it in March 2023, nor that he provided his former migration agent with a copy of a certificate of completion for that course. At [64], it recorded that the document had not been provided to the Tribunal and that an acceptable explanation had not been provided in that regard.
At [70] – [71], the Tribunal identified that the package of Hospitality courses would require the applicant to remain in Australia until early 2026. In circumstances where he had enrolled in very similar courses in October 2020, in which he had made very little progress before it was cancelled for a failure to pay fees in May 2021. It did not accept that completion of the courses would add value to his future and considered the applicant was only enrolled in these courses as a strategic attempt to reinforce his review case.
At [72], the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant genuinely wanted to study and would operate a restaurant in India. It noted the applicant’s evidence he would do this with his father was contradicted by his father’s evidence which made no mention of such plans: at [76]. This was especially so in circumstances where the applicant already had ample opportunity to adequately engage with his studies. Despite his previous student visa being cancelled in 2020 for a breach of the enrolment condition, the applicant still failed to comply with the condition and maintain enrolment. The Tribunal outlined that unless an extensive failure to comply with such a fundamental condition was adequately explained by credible evidence, that an applicant could not ordinarily expect the Tribunal to discount that failure, or ameliorate its consequences: at [73].
The Tribunal was also concerned with the fact that despite having completed a Diploma of Business in 2017, the applicant enrolled in the same course in December 2019 which was subsequently cancelled for unsatisfactory progress: at [74]. The Tribunal was also concerned that the applicant’s work experience in Australia had no connection to his studies: at [75].
Further, it did not accept the applicant genuinely intended to explore the prospect of employment if he completed these courses, because if he did, he would not have approached his previous studies in the way he did: at [81]. The Tribunal further found that even if the hospitality courses would add value to the applicant’s future, that it would not attach significant weight to it: at [82].
The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had a wife and father who lived in India and that he had returned there in 2016 for a few days: at [83]. It accepted that the applicant’s father had been supportive of his studies but noted that his affidavit did not mention of the applicant’s wife or corroborate the applicant’s current enrolment: at [84]. It did not accept that the applicant’s father had the financial means or inclination to help the applicant establish a restaurant in India: at [85], [96].
At [86], the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had strong personal ties to go back to India to be with his wife as they were married online in May 2021 and that they had not met in person more than 2.5 years later. At [89], the Tribunal considered that the applicant’s familial connections were not particularly strong or enduring ties to give him a significant incentive to return. Nor could it find on the evidence that there were strong potential economic ties to India in the form of potential employment in the hospitality sector. It found his assertion that he wanted to establish a restaurant aspirational and lacked the detail: at [91].
The Tribunal considered the applicant’s extensive work history in Australia, of 5 years, to be an economic tie to Australia and an incentive not to return to India: [93]–[94]. It was not prepared to accept the applicant had a significant incentive to return to India on completion of his courses. It notes that he gave no evidence of his family’s assets or his father’s financial capacity to assist him: at [96], and it did not accept that his courses were highly relevant to his career aims due to his unexplained conduct in relation to his similar courses: at [97].
In respect of his immigration history, at [98], the Tribunal considered that he failed to provide accurate information in his visa application. It found his failure to correct the information until September 2023 was of concern as it was in response to an invitation to comment.
The Tribunal further considered the cancellation of his earlier visa in January 2020 and the fact he successfully reviewed that decision not to be of any great assistance. Rather, it thought that in those circumstances he would have approached his enrolments very differently: at [100]. It found there were no further matters of relevance other than to reiterate he wanted to remain in Australia until January 2026, almost 2 years away to study a package of hospitality which he had the opportunity to complete in Australia in 2021: at [101].
The Tribunal ultimately found the applicant was a not genuine temporary student and did not meet the requirements of cl 500.212.
APPLICATION TO THIS COURT
The application for judicial review was filed on 9 January 2024. The applicant also filed an affidavit annexing the Tribunal’s Outcome of Review document. It was not necessary for the Court to take this affidavit into evidence as the document was included in the Court Book filed by the Minister on 15 August 2024 which was tendered at the hearing (as Exhibit CB) and is in evidence.
The matter was listed for hearing on 25 August 2025 at the Parramatta Registry of the Court and a notice of listing was sent to the parties on 9 July 2025.
At the hearing, on 25 August 2025, the applicant appeared in person and was assisted by an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages. The Minister was represented by Mr Westenberg of Sparke Helmore Lawyers.
Being mindful that the applicant was unrepresented, I explained to him how the hearing would proceed and the role and powers of the Court in judicial review proceedings.
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
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
The grounds of review advanced in the application (without alteration) are:
1. The Tribunal gave me an oral decision and even though I have requested a full decision it has not come yet.
2. The tribunal failed to give me a proper refusal and for that reason I will submit an Amended Application when I have the decision from the Tribunal.
3. At this stage I continue to refute the decision of the Tribunal to refuse to grant me a student visa.
Grounds one and two
By grounds one and two the applicant contends that the Tribunal erred by making an oral decision even though he had requested a ‘full decision,’ which is taken to mean his request for written reasons.
As submitted by the Minister, and explained to the applicant at the hearing, it was open to the Tribunal under s 368D(1) of the Act to make an oral decision and there is no error in the Tribunal choosing to do so, nor was it a denial of procedural fairness: Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 869 at [44].
While the Tribunal did not provide a written reduction of its oral decision within 14 days, as required by s 368D(4)(b), this delay does not of itself establish error on the part of the Tribunal or invalidate its decision. As submitted by the Minister, s 368D(7)(b) of the Act provides that the validity of the Tribunal’s oral decision is not affected in the event of non-compliance with s 368D(4): Dhillon v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 524 at [14] and the cases cited therein.
Ground two, in part, asserts that the applicant will file an amended application upon receipt of the decision from the Tribunal, which is taken to mean receipt of the written reasons. This is not a proper ground of review and does not identify any error by the Tribunal.
As noted by the Minister in their submissions, the applicant has had access to the Tribunal’s written statement since at least 15 August 2024, when the Court Book was served upon him electronically. Further, despite being granted leave by a Registrar of the Court to file any amended application and submissions by 28 July 2025, the applicant has not done so.
Grounds one and two do not disclose jurisdictional error.
Ground three
By ground three, the applicant expressed his disagreement with the findings and reasons made by the Tribunal. This ground, on its face, seeks to engage the Court in impermissible merits review.
When asked at the hearing before me to explain, by reference to the Tribunal’s decision or process, in what way it may have erred when considering his case, the applicant said he felt rushed and was only asked two questions: about his wife and his enrolment. He said the Tribunal did not believe him about his marital status, he provided information relevant to his new course, he could have obtained a new CoE and should have been given time to provide the further document.
The applicant’s submissions raise several possible grounds of error: First, whether the applicant had been afforded an opportunity to give evidence and present arguments in relation to the issues in the review; Second, whether the applicant was denied the opportunity to provide evidence in support of his application for review and; Third, whether the Tribunal’s findings and reasons were open to it.
The Minister contended that the Tribunal complied with its procedural fairness obligations under Division 5 of Part 5 of the Act, which was an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the matters it dealt with: s 357A.
As submitted by the Minister, the Tribunal invited the applicant, pursuant to s 359 of the Act, to provide information relating to his enrolment and the genuine temporary entrant criterion: CB 61. The correspondence included an attachment of Ministerial Direction No. 69, which set out the matters relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant. It was noted that the applicant provided a response which indicated details of his academic history, personal circumstances, and CoE for the course in cooking that he was planning to study, other CoE’s and the form seeking to correct information provided in his student visa application.
It was further submitted that, in compliance with s 360, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear before it to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision on review. The issue, as submitted, was the same as that which was before the delegate, being whether the applicant met the requirement of cl 500.212. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 December 2023 by telephone.
The Minister, by reference to the Tribunal’s decision, drew the Court’s attention to [9] where the Tribunal said it had informed the applicant that his documentary evidence was deficient, and that the applicant had not sought an adjournment of the hearing, nor did he indicate he had other documents he wished to provide in support of his case. The Minister contended that the Tribunal’s record of the hearing should be relied upon as opposed to unsworn evidence given by the applicant from the bar table, in circumstances where no transcript had been filed.
It was submitted that, in any event, to the extent the applicant was seeking to provide evidence of his enrolment for the 2023 course, about which the Tribunal was sceptical, refusal to provide any adjournment would have been reasonable given there had already been request made for the applicant to provide information, being the s 359 invitation.
Whether refusal to grant an adjournment is reasonable or not will depend on the facts of each case. One cannot say categorically that it would have been reasonable for the Tribunal to refuse to grant further time for the applicant to provide further evidence in circumstances where he had previously been invited under s 359 to provide information in support of the review. So, in this regard, I disagree with the Minister’s submission that it would have been reasonable for the Tribunal to refuse an adjournment if one had been made. In any event, the Tribunal’s decision plainly records at [9] that the applicant was put on notice of the deficiency in the evidence provided and he had not made an adjournment request. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to engage in the hypothetical of what would or would not have been reasonable for the Tribunal to do if such a request a request had been made. The applicant’s complaint that he was not given additional time to provide further documents is without basis.
Having considered the evidence in the Court Book and the Tribunal’s reasons for the decision, I agree with the Minister’s other submissions. The Tribunal appears to have complied with its procedural fairness obligations under the Act, and the applicant has not filed any evidence, such as a transcript of the hearing, which suggests he was not afforded a meaningful opportunity to provide evidence at the hearing.
The applicant has failed to establish any breach of procedural fairness obligations by the Tribunal.
Turning to the Tribunal’s reasons for the decision. As noted above, the applicant’s complaint appears to be largely directed at the merits of the Tribunal’s decision.
Whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant
The Minister further submitted that, as noted by the Tribunal, the central issue was the same issue before the delegate: whether the applicant met cl 500.212, and the applicant was clearly aware of the central issue on the review: SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63.
In written submissions, the Minister outlined the matters considered by the Tribunal in determining whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant. This included:
(a)the applicant’s history of failed enrolments – including multiple CoE’s being cancelled – and his ‘languid academic progress’ having only completed a Diploma of Business and a general English course: [92];
(b)his economic ties and employment in Australia for the previous five years: [93]–[94];
(c)the fact that his brother and friends were also in Australia and he had resided in Australia since 2015: [92], [94]–[95];
(d)the fact that he had limited familial ties to his home country with no evidence of any economic ties, especially in circumstances where there was no evidence his father had the financial capacity to help him open a restaurant in India: [86]–[89], [96]; and
(e)his previous incorrect information regarding his studies and marital status, as well as the fact that his previous visa had been cancelled for failure to maintain enrolments: [98]; [100].
I accept the Minister’s submission that the Tribunal’s conclusion was open to it on the evidence before it. Read fairly and without an eye attuned to error, the Tribunal’s reasons, which I note were delivered orally, were detailed and cogent and it cannot be said that the decision was so unreasonable or illogical that no other decision maker could have so decided.
In respect of the applicant’s complaint that he was asked two questions at the hearing, about his wife and his enrolment, the Minister submitted that no error arose from the Tribunal considering evidence before it in relation to the applicant’s marriage to a woman who lived in India as it constituted a tie to his home country. The Minister also submitted that no error arose from the Tribunal considering the applicant’s enrolment, including in respect of his claim to have undertaken studies in a course for which he did not provide a CoE. I did not understand the applicant’s complaint in this regard to be directed at the Tribunal taking these matters into account, rather it was that the Tribunal had only asked him questions about these two matters. The decision record does not disclose what questions the Tribunal asked the applicant, though it does set out the evidence, including the documentary and oral evidence, before it and discussions it had with the applicant at the hearing in respect of various matters relevant to its consideration of whether the applicant is a genuine a temporary entrant. If the applicant’s complaint is that the Tribunal’s consideration and concerns were limited to only two issues, being his marriage to a person in India and his enrolment in a course, this has not been made out.
Issue raised by the Minister
The Minister submitted that the Tribunal’s reference to the applicant being enrolled in a course that was due to end in 2026, does not establish error of the kind identified in Eros v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1061 (Eros). I agree, and it is not entirely clear why the Minister raised this as an issue.
I accept that the Tribunal was not making a finding, as was done by the Tribunal in Eros, that the applicant intended to remain in Australia for a defined period, namely until 2026. It is plain from its reasons that the Tribunal, in noting the completion date of the applicant’s proposed courses, was merely doing so to provide context to the applicant’s history of enrolments in the various courses, the majority of which he had failed to complete.
No error is disclosed by the Tribunal’s reference to the end date of the applicant’s proposed course of study.
CONCLUSION
As none of the grounds raised establish error on the part of the Tribunal, the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
COSTS
The Minister sought an order that the applicant pay the Minister’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,500. The applicant submitted that he cannot afford this amount has he has just got married and recently returned from India. Financial hardship is not a matter that can be considered when considering costs. I am satisfied that, in this case, costs should follow the event. Further, having regard to the work undertaken and the scale costs for a standard migration matter, I am satisfied that the costs sought in this matter are reasonable and will so order.
I certify that the preceding seventy-five (75) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Skaros. Associate:
Dated: 9 September 2025
0
8
2