Akhtar v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 368

1. Before this Court is an application for judicial review of a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) filed 20 December 2019.
2. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the then Minister for Home Affairs (Delegate) to refuse the Applicant a Student (Temporary) (class TU) (subclass 500) visa.
3. For the reasons that follow, this Court has determined that no jurisdictional error arises from the Tribunal's decision.

1. The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan.[1] Prior to coming to Australia, the Applicant completed a Bachelor of Business Administration (Honours) from Iqra University which was awarded on 15 April 2013.[2]
2. The Applicant arrived in Australia on 24 July 2013 as the holder of a Student (class TU) (subclass 573) visa, valid from 17 July 2013 to 15 March 2015.[3]
3. On 16 April 2015, the Applicant was granted a further Student (class TU) (subclass 573) visa, valid until 15 March 2016.[4]
4. Since arriving in Australia, the Applicant has completed a Master of Business Administration and a Master of Professional Accounting.[5]
5. On 23 May 2016, after these studies were completed, the Applicant was granted a Temporary Graduate (class VC) (subclass 485) visa valid until 23 May 2018.[6]
6. On 22 May 2018, the Applicant submitted a further application for a Student (Temporary) (class TU) (subclass 500) visa (Student Visa).[7] The Applicant intended to study an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, commencing 21 May 2018 and had a Certificate of Enrolment (CoE). The Applicant stated that after completing the course he wished to seek the best available opportunity in the same field in his home country.[8]
7. Despite asserting in his Student Visa application that a "Statement of Purpose" was attached,[9] no such statement was supplied to the Department.[10]
8. On 22 May 2018, the Applicant appointed Vision Consultants Australia as his representative.[11]
9. Since arriving in Australia, the Applicant had returned to Pakistan on five occasions to visit family.[12]

1. On 25 June 2018, the Delegate refused the Student Visa application.[13]
2. In short, the Delegate was not satisfied that clause 500.212 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations); clause 500.212 is also known as the Genuine Temporary Entrant criterion (GTE Criterion).[14] The Delegate found that the Applicant was "more likely using the Student visa program for reasons other than genuine study".[15] This conclusion was reached because:

(a) where the application form invited the Applicant to give details in support of their ability to meet the GTE Criterion, the Applicant referred to a "Statement of Purpose" not in fact supplied. The Delegate considered that this was "not consistent with the behaviour of a genuine student who wants to secure a Student visa to successfully undertake study in Australia". Furthermore, they considered that such behaviour:

(i) raised concerns that the Applicant might have been "using the Student visa program as a means of maintaining residence in Australia";

(ii) indicated that the Applicant was "primarily motivated by factors other than a genuine interest in study attendance and a good educational outcome";

(b) it was "difficult to reconcile the Applicant's proposed extension to their study... when they have provided no information to explain why they are seeking to undertake further study in Australia";

(c) the Applicant's proposed course of study was "at a lower level than studies previously undertaken" and they had "provided no information to demonstrate why they require[d] further study in Australia, and could not use the qualifications already attained, to obtain gainful employment in their home country";

(d) the Applicant had "provided no information to satisfy [the Delegate] that undertaking their proposed course would be of value to their future by providing greater employment opportunities or increased remuneration in their home country which would offset the costs required, and already incurred, to study in Australia"; and

(e) the Applicant had "provided no information to demonstrate that they could not undertake further studies in their home country to gain the same, or similar knowledge, which would reduce the costs involved significantly". [16]

1. By operation of the Act, this Court has no power to review the decision of the Delegate.[17]

1. On 3 July 2018, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate's decision.[18]
2. On 13 September 2019, the Tribunal invited the Applicant's representative to provide "sufficient information to satisfy" the Tribunal that the Applicant was enrolled in a registered course of study and met the GTE Criterion (s 359(2) Request). The Applicant was given until 30 September 2019 to supply the requested information.[19]
3. On 16 September 2019, the Tribunal forwarded the s 359(2) Request to the Applicant's representative a second time.[20]
4. On 30 September 2019, the Applicant responded to the s 359(2) Request and provide a CoE.[21] The response included the following information:

(a) that the Applicant was enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management. The Applicant described having attended the campus in person and researching the course online. He stated that the subjects on offer were of interest, and would aid him to find his desired job in Pakistan;

(b) that that there were alternatives to the course outside Australia, but that these courses lacked "industry relevance... [and] active participation". The Applicant expressed his belief that "the programs in Pakistan [were] slightly outmoded" and that the proposed course offered the "ideal work-life balance, along with academic excellence and national recognition";

(c) that after completing the course, the Applicant would be able to find a managerial position in Pakistan. The Applicant expressed his belief that such a position would offer between $28,000 and $30,000 annually;

(d) that the Applicant's father, mother and two brothers lived in Pakistan whilst his sister resided in the United States; and

(e) that the Applicant communicated with his family in Pakistan every day and visited almost every year.[22]

1. On 25 October 2019, the Tribunal invited the Applicant to attend a hearing scheduled for 11 November 2019.[23]
2. On 6 November 2019, the Applicant completed a Response to hearing invitation form which confirmed he would attend the hearing, with the assistance of his representative.[24]
3. On 7 November 2019, the Applicant provided a letter addressing the GTE Criterion. The Applicant explained that:[25]

(a) he was "an individual who values... family the most" and that "living away from them was a painstaking task". He elaborated later in the statement that since arriving in Australia, he had visited his family "almost 10 times and stayed for more than a month" and that his family were "waiting for [him] to return";

(b) that after having entered paid work in Australia, upon the completion of his Masters of Profession Accounting and Business Administration, the Applicant came to the realisation that he was "lacking in [a] couple of dimensions in [his] work life", namely, interpersonal and managerial skills. He further discussed that, after visiting Pakistan, he discovered that a Master's degree was not all that was "essential for getting a good job" and that he subsequently enrolled in the Diploma;

(c) he had become depressed upon the Department's rejection of his Student Visa application and that this state of depression had led him to discontinue the Diploma in question. He discussed this depression being exacerbated by his grandfather's death, as well as his inability to talk to family about his mental state for fear of worrying them;

(d) the proposed Diploma was "a vocational course where [he] would be learning the techniques to build the leadership and management skills which were not taught in [the] MBA or MPA degree"; and

(e) after completing the proposed Diploma, he "would be able to find a job in [a] managerial position... [including] as a financial accountant, business unit executive, chief executive officer, accounts manager, branch manager etc".

1. On 11 November 2019, the Applicant attended the scheduled hearing with his representative.[26]
2. On 27 November 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision not to grant the Applicant the Student Visa. The Applicant was notified on 2 December 2019.[27]

1. The Tribunal's decision is 14 pages long and spans 54 paragraphs.[28]
2. At paragraphs 15 to 23 of the Minister's submissions filed 17 February 2026, the Tribunal's reasons were summarised. The Court as presently constituted has carefully read the Tribunal's reasons and accept this summary as comprehensive, fair and properly referenced. The Court adopts it for the purposes of this judgment (references omitted):

15. The Tribunal noted the requirements of the genuine temporary entrant criterion, and acknowledged that in considering whether the applicant satisfied those requirements it needed to have regard to Direction No. 69 'Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications' made under s 499 of the Act (the Direction). The Tribunal noted that the Direction required it to have regard to factors in relation to:

15.1. the applicant's circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant's future;

15.2. the applicant's immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries; and

15.3. any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

16. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's claims that he had been unable to complete his initial Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, and that he was not enrolled in a course between November 2018 and September 2019, due to his mental state. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was unable to study to due to his mental condition, for the following reasons:

16.1. The applicant was informed of the delegate's decision in June 2018 but was able to continue studying the course for a period of 5 months after that date;

16.2. The applicant was able to work during the relevant period; and

16.3. The applicant did not provide any medical or psychological evidence about his condition.

17. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had completed a Bachelor degree in Pakistan and that since arriving in Australia he had completed a Master of Business Administration and Master of Professional Accounting, and undertaken a professional year in accounting. It found that the applicant's proposed course did not reveal any progression in his course of study, was inconsistent with his level of education, and was unlikely to improve his employment prospects and remuneration in Pakistan. It further found that he would be able to study a similar course in Pakistan, and that he did not have reasonable motives to study the course in Australia.

18. The Tribunal found that the applicant's period of stay in Australia was inconsistent with the stay being on a temporary basis.

19. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had a substantial degree of knowledge about the course and its provider, and of living in Australia.

20. The Tribunal accepted that the income earned by the applicant in Australia was modest and did not provide a substantial economic incentive to remain in Australia. However, the Tribunal further found that the applicant was likely to earn a higher income in Australia than in Pakistan and that the relative economic conditions of both countries did not present a significant incentive to return to Pakistan.

21. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant's return travel to Pakistan, and accepted that the amount of time he had spent in Pakistan was consistent with him not wanting to stay in Australia permanently and wanting to return home.

22. The Tribunal found that the applicant had personal ties to both Australia and Pakistan. It found that his connection with his family in Pakistan would usually provide an incentive to return home but that they needed to be considered in light of his ties to Australia and the period of time he had spend here. It concluded that his ties to Pakistan did not provide a significant incentive to return there.

23. The Tribunal concluded that the primary objective of the applicant in applying for the visa was to maintain ongoing residence in Australia and to remain in Australia permanently. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant intended genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, and found that he did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

1. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision to refuse the Student Visa.

1. On 20 December 2019, the Applicant applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision dated 27 November 2019 (Originating Application).
2. The application is brought pursuant to section 476 of the Act, which confers upon this court, in relation to migration decisions, the "same original jurisdiction as the High Court under s 75(v) of the Constitution". That is, the Court may undertake judicial review, in respect of matters "where a writ of mandamus or prohibition, or an injunction, is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth."[29]
3. The application was brought within the 35-day time limit prescribed by section 477(1) of the Act.
4. The Originating Application sought to quash the decision of the Tribunal (writ of certiorari), however was deficient in seeking a writ of mandamus. At the hearing, in order to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, the following Order was made:

Pursuant to r 8.09 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) the application filed on 20 December 2019 is taken to have been amended so as to seek a writ of mandamus.

1. The Applicant lists eight grounds of alleged error. The Applicant's grounds of review, extracted from the Originating application, are reproduced and considered below.

1. On 16 January 2020, the First Respondent (Minister) filed its response and opposed the making of the orders sought by the Applicant. The Minister submitted that decision under review was not affected by jurisdictional error.
2. On 15 April 2020, the Minister filed a bundle of relevant documents (Court Book).
3. On 14 March 2025, a Registrar of this Court issued an Order (Registrar's Order) directing the:

(a) Applicant to file any amended application with proper particulars, written submissions and further evidence at least 28 days before the hearing; and

(b) Minister to file any written submissions and further evidence in reply at least 14 days before the hearing.

1. The Applicant did not file an amended application, nor did he provide further particulars of the grounds for judicial review despite being invited to do so.
2. On 17 February 2026, the Minister complied with the Registrar's Order by filing written submissions.
3. Therefore, the materials before the Court are as follows:

(a) the Originating Application filed 20 December 2019;

(b) a Court Book numbering 121 pages filed 15 April 2020 (marked as Exhibit R1); and

(c) Written Submissions filed by the Minister on 17 February 2026.

1. This matter was allocated to the Court as presently constituted on 22 December 2025, listed for hearing the following day and heard on 3 March 2026 in the Court's Melbourne registry.
2. At the hearing, the Applicant appeared via Webex without legal representation. The Minister was represented by Michelle Stone, solicitor at Australian Government Solicitor, who appeared in person.
3. The Court confirmed with the Applicant that they had received a copy of the Court Book and the Minister's written submissions.
4. To assist the Applicant, the Court explained that this Court can only turn its attention to the issue of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. The Court explained that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. For migration decisions of this sort, however, they most commonly include (but are not limited to) the following categories:

(1) where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question;[30]

(2) where the decision-maker ignores relevant material;[31]

(3) where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material;[32]

(4) where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures;[33]

(5) where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias;[34] and

(6) where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable.[35]

1. It was also explained to the Applicant that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal's decision or grant the Applicant the visa they seek. Rather, the role of the Court is restricted to determining if the Tribunal's decision was affected by a material error.[36]
2. Noting that the Applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave the Applicant an opportunity to elaborate on his grounds of review and to outline any other concerns he might have with the Tribunal's decision. This is now the standard procedure in this Court following the decision in Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection.[37]
3. Before this Court, the Applicant made submissions in support of the grounds set out in their application. Those submissions are considered below.
4. The Minister relied on its written submissions filed by the Minister on 17 February 2026.
5. The Court then invited the Applicant to make any further submissions which are also considered below.

The role of the Court in judicial review proceedings

1. In Bhasker v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[38] his Honour Judge Fary (as he was then) summarised the role of the Court in judicial review proceedings:

48. Section 476 of the Migration Act provides that the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court has under s 75(v) of the Constitution.

49. Section 75(v) of the Constitution provides that the High Court has original jurisdiction in all matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. Thus, subject to the statutory exceptions provided for in s 476 of the Migration Act, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has original jurisdiction in all matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. Further, s 474 of the Migration Act does not preclude judicial review of decisions under the Migration Act where jurisdictional error is alleged.[39]

50. "The task of the Court [in an application for judicial review] is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality of the decision by reference to the complaints made about it." The court neither consider the merits of the decision nor remakes it.[40]

51. The Court may grant relief if it is satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is affected by jurisdictional error.[41] Jurisdictional error by a statutory decision maker may manifest itself in a variety of ways. Recognised categories of jurisdictional error include "misunderstanding the applicable law; asking the wrong question; exceeding the bounds of reasonableness; identifying a wrong issue; ignoring relevant material; relying on irrelevant material; in some cases, making an erroneous finding or reaching a mistaken conclusion; or failing to observe some applicable requirement of procedural fairness".[42] Different kinds of error may overlap.[43] The categories are not closed.[44] The critical question is whether the decision maker has exceeded the authority or power conferred by the statute.[45]

52. In most but not all cases, for an error to be jurisdictional, the error must be material to the decision being challenged. The test is whether there is a "realistic possibility" that the decision that was made "could" have been different, but for the error.[46] This is to be determined as "a matter of reasonable conjecture within the parameters set by the historical facts that have been determined".[47] It has been described as an "undemanding" standard.[48]

1. The Court as presently constituted respectfully adopts his Honour's summary of the task before it.
2. Further, disagreement with a decision, even emphatic disagreement, does not of itself give rise to jurisdictional error.[49]

The decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant my Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa was made under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The major issue was whether the delegate properly exercise his power under s 499 of the Act.

1. This is a criticism of the Delegate's decision which the Court has no power to review.[50] Ground One is dismissed.

Following section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) ACT 1997, (ADJR), the • tribunal should take into account relevant consideration in the exercise of his power.

1. As the Tribunal's decision is a privative or purported privative clause decision under the Migration Act,[51] relief under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997 (Cth) (ADJR Act) is not available to the Applicant.[52]
2. When the Applicant was asked by the Court why he had framed this ground of review in terms of the ADJR Act, he explained that a third party had assisted him to submit his application.[53]
3. It has been the approach of judges of this Court, in circumstances where an Applicant is self-represented, to interpret similar grounds in light of recognised common law bases for the finding of jurisdictional error.[54] As has been explained, a decision-maker's ignorance of relevant material is one such basis.[55]
4. At the hearing, the Court invited the Applicant to identify what specific evidence was ignored by the Tribunal; he was unable to do so.[56] Nonetheless, even upon a close reading of the Tribunal decision, there is no indication that the Tribunal failed to consider any of the material supplied by the Applicant either in writing, or orally at the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal's detailed enumeration of the evidence before it demonstrates this.
5. Ground Two is dismissed.

On 11 November 2019, I attended the hearing at AAT. The tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department on 27 November 2019. In the decision they stated that states that I have not provided the Tribunal with any expert evidence, including any medical or psychological report confirming that I was unable to study for the certain period. However, those documents were never requested to me, neither I was given with the opportunity to submit later.

1. The High Court in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI[57] asserted, in relation to the Tribunal's "duty to inquire", that (citations omitted):

[1] ... In the exercise of its review function, the tribunal may obtain such information as it considers relevant. In this sense it has an inquisitorial function. That does not, however, impose upon it a general duty to undertake its own inquiries in addition to information provided to it by the applicant and otherwise under the Act.

[25] Although decisions in the Federal Court concerned with a failure to make obvious inquiries have led to references to a "duty to inquire", that term is apt to direct consideration away from the question whether the decision which is under review is vitiated by jurisdictional error. The duty imposed upon the tribunal by the Migration Act is a duty to review. It may be that a failure to make an obvious inquiry about a critical fact, the existence of which is easily ascertained, could, in some circumstances, supply a sufficient link to the outcome to constitute a failure to review. If so, such a failure could give rise to jurisdictional error by constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. It may be that failure to make such an inquiry results in a decision being affected in some other way that manifests itself as jurisdictional error...

1. Further, as was stated in the decision of Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB[58] in relation to provisions in effect at the time of the Tribunal's decision:

[43] ... while s 427 of the Act confers power on the tribunal to obtain a medical report, the Act does not impose any duty or obligation to do so. Rather, s 426 provides that, even if an applicant requests that the tribunal take oral or written evidence from a witness (such as a medical practitioner or psychiatrist), the tribunal is not required to obtain such evidence. Thus, the tribunal is under no duty to inquire.

1. Plainly, there was no default obligation on the Tribunal to tell the Applicant what documents to provide, nor to make its own enquiries or investigate the Applicant's mental health claims which were not supported by evidence.[59] The onus was on the Applicant to put forward his case to the Tribunal.
2. In a procedurally fair way on 25 October 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the Applicant, inviting him to submit evidence or documents.[60] This was an opportunity to provide evidence regarding his medical issues. The Applicant did not avail himself of this opportunity. On 7 November 2019, the Applicant wrote a letter to the Tribunal addressing the GTE Criterion, in which he stated he was depressed. However, the Applicant provided no evidence supporting his self-reporting of depression.
3. Before this Court, the Applicant agreed he was given an opportunity to provide evidence.[61]
4. In any case it is clear from the Tribunal's decision that it was aware of the Applicant's mental health issues and considered them. It was open for the Tribunal to not accept that he was unable to study due to these issues.[62]
5. Furthermore, there is little indication that the Applicant's mental health was a fact critical to the Tribunal's decision, such that the failure of the Tribunal to make further inquiries as to its impacts could amount to jurisdictional error. Irrespective of the Tribunal having refused to accept the Applicant's evidence that he was unable to study due to his mental health condition, it is clear that its conclusion regarding the GTE Criterion was premised on the matter's wider factual matrix, namely:

(a) that the Applicant "has, since being in Australia, undertaken studies in a wide variety of courses";[63]

(b) the course in which the Applicant was enrolled in at the time of the Tribunal's decision was "a short VET course and does not reveal any progression in his course of study";[64]

(c) the Tribunal's finding that the proposed course was "unlikely to improve [the Applicant's] employment prospects and renumeration in Pakistan";[65]

(d) that the length of time the Applicant had spent in Australia was "inconsistent with the stay being on a temporary basis";[66] and

(e) that even despite the Applicant's strong family ties in Pakistan, "the duration and stability of his living arrangements in Australia, coupled with his employment, the better economic conditions and higher level of wages in Australia and his lifestyle demonstrate strong ties to Australia" and a "strong incentive to remain in Australia".[67]

In the decision letter it was also mentioned that my length of stay in Pakistan together with the number of visits that I have undertaken is more consistent with me not wanting to stay in Australia permanently and wanting to return home. It was also mentioned that I have given evidence that my mother, father and two brothers all reside in Pakistan as well as I am engaged to be married and my partner currently resides in Pakistan and we are engaged to be married in 2022 after my partner completes her studies, which she is currently undertaking in Pakistan. Event after this, they decided that my ties to Pakistan do not provide a significant incentive for me to return home.

1. The Tribunal plainly considered the Applicant's ties to Pakistan, and accepted the Applicant had significant ties in Pakistan.[68] It was a factor that went in the Applicant's favour when determining whether the Applicant satisfied the GTE criterion. The Applicant accepted this in the hearing.[69]
2. However, the Tribunal weighed the Applicant's ties to his home country against his ties within Australia and the duration of stay in Australia. The Tribunal was entitled to undertake this weighing exercise. The degree of weight to be given to evidence is a factual question for the decision-maker alone[70] and cannot be disturbed by this Court. To do so would have the Court engage in impermissible merits review. The Applicant's criticism of the Tribunal's decision is nothing more than disagreement. It does not establish jurisdictional error.
3. Ground Four is dismissed.

In addition, based on my circumstances and ties in Australia, the Tribunal based on the fact that I am working (which is allowed as per my visa condition) and staying with my friend and playing cricket as a hobby in Australia. The Tribunal mentioned that such conduct demonstrates that I have a strong incentive to remain in Australia.

1. Ground Five is a description of the Tribunal's findings. It is not a proper ground of review.
2. During the hearing, the Applicant explained that all the activities he took part in, in Australia, assisted him in coping with his mental health issues. This may be true. However, the Tribunal had regard to his activities in Australia (including him working as an Uber driver) and concluded that his ability to participate in such activities went against his claim that he was unable to study due to his mental condition.[71] That finding was open to the Tribunal to make. It discloses no jurisdictional error.
3. Ground Five is dismissed.

I am aware that The Direction to check the genuine temporary entrant criterion only indicates the factors specified and it should not be used as a checklist, but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant's circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

1. Ground Six describes the operation of Direction 69. It is not a proper ground of review alleging error.
2. Ground Six is dismissed.

Also, any decisions of the delegates should be fair and reasonable. I will like to say that the tribunal have ignored the information I have provided as ties with my home country and also used my work, living arrangement and hobby negatively as ties with Australia which I believe is not a negative thing as per my visa conditions.

1. At the hearing the Court invited the Applicant to identify what specific evidence was ignored by the Tribunal.[72] He was unable to do so. Without particulars or specific examples, the ground is not made out.
2. Ground Seven is dismissed.

Therefore, the tribunal failed to take into account all relevant circumstances and there is an error of law in the delegate's decision.

1. As stated above, at the hearing the Applicant was unable to point to specific matters or circumstances which the Tribunal failed to consider. The Applicant's complaints amounted to no more that dissatisfaction with the Tribunal's decision.
2. To the extent that ground eight alleges an "error of law" the Applicant was unable to articulate how such an error arose.
3. Ground Eight is dismissed.

1. Mindful of the Court's obligations towards unrepresented litigants as outlined in MZAIB at [59]-[77], [100] and [112]-[113], the Court has scrutinised the application, the materials before the Tribunal and the Tribunal's decision to identify any jurisdictional error. The Court has also read the Applicant's grounds as broadly as possible and remained alive to the possibility of jurisdictional error on the Tribunal's part. Nevertheless, the Court is of the view that error has not been disclosed on the Tribunal's part.
2. For the reasons set out above, this Court is satisfied that the Tribunal's reasons were not affected by jurisdictional error.
3. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. The Court will hear the parties on costs.

I certify that the preceding eighty (80) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Johns.

[17] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 338, 474, 476(2)(a), 476(4)(a).

[29] EDO19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 826, [64].

[30] Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 198.

[31] Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 198.

[32] Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 198.

[33] SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) HCA 24; (2005) 228 CLR 294, [207]-[208].

[34] SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80, [2].

[35] Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611, [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437, [44].

[36] Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, 272.

[37] [2019] FCA 600, [7].

[38] [2025] FedCFamC2G 620.

[39] Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

[40] Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21, [17] (Allson CJ, Besanko and O'Callaghan JJ).

[41] Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

[42] LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 418 ALR 152, [3] ('LPDT').

[43] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 2006 CLR 323, [82].

[45] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 351, [82].

[47] MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; (2021) 273 CLR 506, [38] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ).

[48] Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 276 CLR 80, [33] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ).

[49] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21, [40].

[50] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 338, 474, 476(2)(a), 476(4)(a).

[51] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5E, 474.

[52] Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1997 (Cth) sch 1 s 3(da)-(db).

[53] Transcript, 3 March 2026, 5 line 45-7.

[54] See, e.g, CLY17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 725, [21] (Judge Ladhams).

[55] Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 198.

[56] Transcript, 3 March 2026, 9 line 37, 10 line 3.

[57] [2009] HCA 39; (2009) 111 ALD 15.

[58] [2004] HCA 32; (2004) 78 ALD 224.

[59] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32; (2004) 207 ALR 12, [43] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ).

[61] Transcript, 3 March 2026, 6 line 43.

[69] Transcript, 3 March 2026, 7 lines 29-47.

[70] see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS [2010] HCA 48; (2010) 243 CLR 164 at [33] and Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510, [197] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[72] Transcript, 3 March 2026, 9 line 37, 10 line 3.