ADNAN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1464

1. At the hearing of this matter on 28 August 2025, the applicants appeared unrepresented assisted by an Urdu interpreter. Mr J O'Connell of HWL Ebsworth appeared for the first respondent.
2. I consider, in cases such as the present where the applicant is unrepresented, the appropriate procedure is to give the applicant an opportunity to explain orally at the hearing before me what was meant by each of the grounds of review as they appear in the application to this Court and why the applicant considers the Tribunal was wrong: see SZRUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 146; (2013) 216 FCR 445 (SZRUR) at [37] and [60] (Robertson J, with Allsop CJ and Mortimer J agreeing) and BSQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 943 Hill J.
3. Accordingly, I first took the first applicant to the first ground of review and asked what was meant by that ground. The applicant did not want to say anything about that ground.
4. In relation to the second ground, I told the applicant that the second written ground did not contain any complaint about the Tribunal decision, it merely stated she would engage a lawyer and update the grounds in the application later, which did not occur, and therefore it was not a proper ground of review. I asked her if she wanted to make general submissions in support of her case and she said she did. She said that she had obtained a further IELTS score since the Tribunal decision and wanted the Court to accept that new score and grant her a visa. I told the applicant I was not permitted to do what she wanted the Court to do in these proceedings. I told her I could only review the decision of the Tribunal to see if it contained a legal error amounting to a jurisdictional error.
5. Mr O'Connell made brief oral submissions summarising the first respondent's written submissions on both grounds. In relation to the matters raised by the applicant at the hearing Mr O'Connell said these matters occurred after the Tribunal decision and were not relevant to the review of the Tribunal decision. I agree with Mr O'Connell in relation to the oral submissions made by the applicant at the hearing before me, those submissions did not contain an arguable jurisdictional error that had been committed by the Tribunal.

1. To succeed the applicant must show that the Tribunal's decision contained a jurisdictional error. That is, a serious legal error that results in an administrative decision lacking any legal force: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 42; and LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 98 ALJR 610 at [2]- [3] and [32] (LPDT).
2. In proceedings such as these, as I explained to the parties, the Court does not consider the merits of the decision; nor does it remake the decision: Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21 (Djokovic).
3. Below the Court sets out its consideration of the grounds of judicial review in this matter. For the reasons given below, none of the grounds identify the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.

1. In this ground, the first applicant is asserting the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by being misdirected in its statutory task in determining the first applicant's student visa application.
2. The first respondent submitted that this ground should be rejected because it is unparticularised. In view of the decision in DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784 (DQQ17) at [9] the Federal Court observed that it will rarely be appropriate to dismiss a review ground in a migration case for lack of particularisation where, as here, the applicant is appearing on her own behalf. Thus, I will not dismiss ground 1 for that reason. Instead, I will read ground 1 as a complaint that the Tribunal did not apply the relevant law (cl 500.213) correctly, and deal with it on that basis.
3. Under cl 500.213 the first applicant was required to meet the criteria in cl 500.213(1) unless the first applicant fell within a class specific in cl 500.213(2). The Tribunal correctly identified 500.213(2)(d) as a possible class which the first applicant might fall into.
4. To meet cl 500.213(1), the first applicant was, relevantly, required to provide evidence that she had a minimum International English Language Testing System (IELTS) score in English language proficiency of 5.5, to meet the requirements under IMMI 18/015 (see clause 6(1)(a) and Item 1).
5. The first applicant failed to provide this evidence. The Tribunal found (at [19]) that the minimum IELTS requirement in cl 500.213(1) was not met:
   1. The Tribunal is satisfied that the only evidence of an IELTS Test score is from a test undertaken on 19 January 2019 that had an overall test score of 4.0, as the test intended to be taken after the scheduled hearing on 11 November 2021. A test result for the test advised to be undertaken on 11 November 2021 has not been provided to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the applicant has not met cI.500.213(1) and IMMI 18/015 Schedule 1 - Item 1 of the required test score evidence.
6. Next the Tribunal identified a possible exemption from cl 200.213(1) in cl 500.213(2)(d). Clause 500.213(2)(d) specifically provided that:

(2022) 289 FCR 21

(2024) 98 ALJR 610

(2019) 264 CLR 42

(2003) 211 CLR 476

(2013) 216 FCR 445