ANJU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1567

1. The Tribunal's decision record is at CB90-97.
2. The Tribunal outlined at [4] to [10] (CB91-92), the evidence and information that was before it, which included evidence provided by the Applicant to the Tribunal and evidence that was before the Delegate.
3. Prior to the hearing before the Tribunal, the Applicant provided the following documents to the Tribunal (CB91):

(a) Department of Home Affairs (the Department) notification and decision record dated 24 November 2022;

(b) Applicant's passport biometric information; and

(c) Enrolment letter from Trinity Institute dated 4 September 2023 and Confirmation of Enrolment certificates regarding the Applicant's enrolment in a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management and a Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management.

1. The Tribunal also had regard to the statement the Applicant gave to the Delegate after she was invited to comment on the adverse information that the person who provided the invitation was not her brother (CB91 at [7]).
2. At [8] to [11] of the decision, the Tribunal summarised the Applicant's evidence given at the hearing before it (CB92).
3. The Tribunal correctly identified at [13] (CB92) of its decision, that the issue on review was whether the Applicant met the criteria in PIC4020 as required by cl 500.217(1) of Sch 2 of the Regulations, for the grant of the Student visa.
4. The Tribunal set out the relevant criteria and waiver circumstances at [13] and [14] and then turned to consideration of whether the Applicant had given, or caused to be given, information that is false or misleading in a material particular.
5. At [15] of its decision, the Tribunal set out its interpretation of PIC4020(5) and the term 'bogus document' contained in s 5(1) of the Act, and annexed copies of the relevant provisions to its decision record. It also referenced relevant case law.
6. The Tribunal referred to the difference between the definition of 'information that is false or misleading in a material particular' in PIC4020(5), and the definition of 'bogus document', which has no requirement that the document be relevant to a criterion for the grant of a visa.
7. The Tribunal also stated at [16] that the requirement in PIC4020(1) not to provide a bogus document, or false or misleading information, applies whether or not the Minister became aware of the document or information because of information given by the Applicant. It also stated that the requirement in PIC4020(1) applies whether or not the document or information was provided by the Applicant knowingly or unwittingly.
8. At [17] of its decision, the Tribunal noted that it is not necessary for the Minister or the Tribunal to conclude that the Applicant was aware the information was purposely untrue for PIC4020 to be engaged, but that an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary to attract the operation of the provision.
9. The Tribunal recorded at [18] that the Applicant did not deny that the information in the Visitor visa application was false and misleading, and claimed she had not checked or seen the application that was submitted.
10. At [19] of its decision, the Tribunal referred to the Applicant's claim that an agent had submitted her Visitor visa application. After considering the emails the Applicant had provided and her oral evidence, it concluded there was no satisfactory evidence of the involvement of an agent. The Tribunal also noted that even if an undocumented third party had assisted the Applicant to submit her application, she was still responsible for the content of the application.
11. The Tribunal was satisfied that the person named as the Applicant's brother and who invited her to visit Australia was not her sibling.
12. The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant had provided information that was false or misleading in a material particular, in relation to the application for the visa, or a visa that the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made, and that there was an element of fraud or deception by some person in providing the information.
13. The Tribunal therefore concluded at [20] that the Applicant did not meet the criterion in PIC4020(1).
14. At [21] to [30] of its decision, the Tribunal then went on to consider in detail whether the requirements of PIC4020(1) or (2) should be waived. The Tribunal was not satisfied there were any compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia such that the Applicant's visa should be granted. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that there were compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of a relevant person in Australia such that the Applicant's visa should be granted (CB95 at [27]).
15. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the Applicant did not satisfy PIC4020 for the purposes of cl 500.217(1) and affirmed the Delegate's decision not to grant the Student visa.

1. On 27 February 2024, the Applicant applied to this Court pursuant to s 476 of the Act for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision ('the application'). The Applicant also filed an affidavit annexing the Tribunal's decision.
2. On 6 September 2024, a Registrar made procedural Orders in Chambers which included an order permitting the Applicant to file any written submissions, amended application, and additional evidence upon which she sought to rely, 28 days prior to the hearing and listed the proceedings for a final hearing on a date to be advised.
3. On 23 April 2025, the procedural orders made on 6 September 2024 were confirmed by a Registrar, including the listing for a final hearing on a date to be advised.
4. Notations were made confirming the Applicant had received a copy of the Court Book and requiring the Applicant to file a Notice of Address for Service within 7 days with her correct email address for service.
5. The Applicant did not file any further material or a Notice of Address for Service.
6. The matter was listed for a final hearing on 24 September 2025.

1. At the hearing, the material listed below was before the Court.
2. The Applicant relied upon the following material:

(1) The Court Book which was tendered and marked as Exhibit 'C1';

(2) The Supplementary Court Book which was tendered and marked as Exhibit 'C2';

(3) Application filed on 27 February 2024; and

(4) Affidavit of Anju filed on 27 February 2024.

1. The First Respondent relied upon the following material:

(1) The Court Book which was tendered and marked as Exhibit 'C-1';

(2) The Supplementary Court Book which was tendered and marked as Exhibit 'C2';

(3) Affidavit of Service of Sherine Kodsi filed on 22 September 2025;

(4) Outline of Submissions filed on 10 September 2025; and

(5) Response filed on 9 April 2024.

1. The Applicant was also given the opportunity to make oral submissions in support of her application and in reply to the submissions made by the First Respondent.
2. A Hindi interpreter was present via video-link to assist the Applicant.
3. I have had regard to the material relied upon by both parties in determining this matter and the further oral submissions made by each party at the hearing.

1. The Court may set aside the Tribunal's decision upon judicial review if it is affected by jurisdictional error: see Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 474 and 476; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476.
2. The High Court explained jurisdictional error in LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 280 CLR 321 at [2] as:

...breach of an express or implied condition of a statutory conferral of decision-making authority which results in a decision made in the purported exercise of that authority lacking the legal force attributed to the exercise of that authority by statute. Though a decision affected by jurisdictional error is a decision in fact, it is "in law ... no decision at all" and is in that sense "void".

1. For the reasons that follow, I find that no jurisdictional error is established.

1. The Applicant's nine grounds of review are listed on page 5 of her Application filed on 27 February 2024 and are as follows:
   1. The Department of Home Affairs made a procedural error by not correctly assessing information relevant to my particular matter. I presented enough documents to arguments to favour my visa application.
   2. The minister mentioned that I added my brother as a Sponsor for my visitor visa application. But I told them about my father-in-law and husband were communicating with the agent and I had no idea that he was providing bogus and misleading documents.
   3. I provided screenshot to the case officer in which my family and an agent was communicating about the visitor visa application.
   4. I showed them that the agent had blocked me, and he is not responding to my calls.
   5. The Case Officer mentioned that I do not satisfy the requirements of the cl 500.217 (1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
   6. I raised an argument that I am a genuine student and want to become a chef in Australia. I am currently enrolled in the Trinity College in Cert 4 in Kitchen Management, Diploma of Hospitality Management, and Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management.
   7. Tribunal wrongly interprets the conditions and clauses. I intend to further study and work in Australia. I never intended to provide any false or misleading information.
   8. My application clearly raises some doubts, and the tribunal's ruling must once more be disregarded because it is invalid and lacks important information.
   9. Considerable justice was not provided, which is why I want to apply to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

1. Grounds one to six appear to seek judicial review of the Delegate's decision to refuse the Student visa.
2. To the extent the Applicant seeks review of the Delegate's decision, by s 476(2)(a) of the Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to review a primary decision.

1. It is unclear from Grounds seven to nine, which aspect of the Tribunal's decision the Applicant contends establishes legal error.
2. To the extent the Applicant's grounds suggest disagreement with the Tribunal's decision, mere disagreement with the Tribunal's findings does not establish jurisdictional error: see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611, at [40] per Gleeson CJ and McHugh J, and Vo v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 108; (2019) 269 FCR 566 per Derrington, Banks-Smith and Colvin JJ.
3. The Applicant appears to be suggesting at Grounds seven and eight of her application that the Court should reconsider the facts that were before the Tribunal and disregard its ruling. The Court does not have the power, and it is impermissible to undertake a merits review of the Tribunal's decision: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259.
4. At Ground seven, the Applicant stated "Tribunal wrongly interprets the conditions and clauses". I infer from this that the Applicant is submitting the Tribunal made an error in its interpretation and application of the relevant criteria for the grant of a student visa.
5. Clause 500.217(1) of the Regulations is one of the primary criteria for the grant of a student visa and is as follows:

(1) The applicant satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4010, 4013, 4014, 4020 and 4021.

1. The applicable public interest criterion that must be met is PIC4020 which is as follows:

(1) There is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal during the review of a Part 5 reviewable decision, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to:

(a) the application for the visa; or

(b) a visa that the applicant held in the period of 12 months before the application was made.

(2) The Minister is satisfied that during the period:

(a) starting 3 years before the application was made; and

(b) ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;

the applicant and each member of the family unit of the applicant has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (1).

(2AA) However, subclause (2) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.

(2A) The applicant satisfies the Minister as to the applicant's identity.

(2B) The Minister is satisfied that during the period:

(a) starting 10 years before the application was made; and

(b) ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;

neither the applicant, nor any member of the family unit of the applicant, has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (2A).

(2BA) However, subclause (2B) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.

(3) To avoid doubt, subclauses (1) and (2) apply whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant.

(4) The Minister may waive the requirements of any or all of paragraphs (1)(a) or (b) and subclause (2) if satisfied that:

(a) compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or

(b) compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen;

justify the granting of the visa.

information that is false or misleading in a material particular means information that is:

(a) false or misleading at the time it is given; and

(b) relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.

Note: For the definition of bogus document, see subsection 5(1) of the Act.

1. Bogus document is defined in the Act at s 5(1) as follows:

bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

(a) purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

(c) was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

1. The Tribunal correctly identified at [13] (CB92) that the issue on review was whether the Applicant met PIC4020 as required by cl 500.217(1) of Sch 2 of the Regulations, for the grant of the Student visa.
2. The Tribunal differentiated at [15] of its decision between the definition of information that is false or misleading in a material particular in PIC4020(5), and the reference in the 'bogus document' definition to a document that was 'obtained because of a false or misleading statement'. The Tribunal correctly stated that there was no requirement that such a document be relevant to the criterion for the grant of the visa.
3. The Tribunal gave the Applicant the opportunity to be heard as to the information which was said to be false or misleading (CB92 at [9]). The Applicant did not deny the information in the Visitor visa application was false or misleading however claimed she had never spoken to the agent who completed the application and was never given a copy of the application to check.
4. Notwithstanding this, the Applicant claimed in her application to this Court that she did not knowingly provide the false or misleading information.
5. In oral submissions in this Court, the Applicant contended that the decision was wrong because she had nothing to do with the Visitor visa application, did not review it and had no role in the provision of the false information.
6. It was submitted on behalf of the Minister that the Tribunal was not required to find that there was knowing complicity.
7. In Trivedi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 42; (2014) 220 FCR 169 ('Trivedi') at [43], the Court found that it is not necessary to show knowing complicity by a visa applicant before PIC4020 is engaged, but it is necessary that the information or document have the necessary quality of purposeful falsity, whether or not the visa applicant can be shown to have knowledge of that fact. The Full Court further confirmed this position in Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 52; (2018) 261 FCR 556 at [144(4)].
8. In this respect, it is relevant that the Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence before it that there had been an agent involved, or that the Visitor visa application was submitted by an agent. However, the Tribunal correctly found that even if it had been submitted by an undocumented third party, the Applicant had ultimate responsibility for the information therein.
9. As was stated in Trivedi at [49]:

PIC 4020 is directed at the overall integrity of the visa system and as a bulwark against deception and fraud from any quarter associated with a visa applicant. It is not inconsistent with a coherent public policy to make a visa applicant ultimately responsible for purposely untrue material provided with a visa application. It would be an intolerable burden on the administration of the visa system to require that those assessing visa applications not only discover that information or documents are false in a material particular, but also that the visa applicant who provided them knew them to be so. In many cases that would be impossible and would defeat the apparent intent of the provision.

1. Accordingly, I find that it was open to the Tribunal to conclude on the evidence that PIC4020 was engaged.
2. To the extent the Applicant alleges at Ground eight that the Tribunal's decision "lacks important information", this is a bare assertion without particulars that the Tribunal made an error by disregarding or failing to consider, all relevant information.
3. It can be seen from [4] to [12] of the decision record that the Tribunal considered:

(a) the information that was before the Delegate;

(b) further documentation and submissions from the Applicant prior to the hearing; and

(c) submissions and oral evidence given by the Applicant at the hearing.

1. It is apparent that the Tribunal afforded the Applicant procedural fairness by ensuring she was given opportunities to present additional information prior to the hearing and provide further submissions and evidence at the hearing.
2. After concluding that the Applicant did not satisfy the criteria in PIC4020(1), the Tribunal then gave the Applicant the opportunity to make submissions on whether the requirements of PIC4020(1) should be waived under PIC4020(4).
3. The Tribunal correctly identified at [21] that the requirements in PIC4020(1) and (2) may be waived where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa.
4. In Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 50; (2015) 258 CLR 173, the High Court, per French CJ, Bell, Keane and Gordon JJ, considering the phrase 'compelling reasons for giving special consideration' in cl 202.222(2) of Sch 2 of the Regulations, stated at [31]:

In addition, the state of mind required of the Minister (or a delegate) must be reached by reference to "reasons" that are "compelling"; that is, those reasons must "force or drive the decision-maker" "irresistibly" to be satisfied that "special consideration" should be given to granting the particular application. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of cl.202.222(2) may be met by an applicant in a general way, but the reasons why that is so may not be sufficiently compelling to satisfy the Minister that "special consideration" should be given to granting the application.

1. It is apparent from the Full Court's reasoning in Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 184; (2017) 256 FCR 235, that PIC4020(4) obliges the decision-maker to first be satisfied that 'compelling circumstances' or 'compelling or compassionate circumstances' exist, and only then, may the decision-maker go on to consider those circumstances in determining whether to exercise its discretion to waive the requirements of PIC4020(1).
2. The Tribunal decision recorded at [27] that the Applicant referred to her personal circumstances, in particular her plans to be a chef and the claim that she did not have any intention to provide incorrect information, that she had spoken the truth and had merely asked the agent to apply for a simple tourist visa.
3. Having regard to the Tribunal's reasoning in [23] to [28] of its decision, I consider the Tribunal properly applied a two-stage approach as required by PIC4020(4) and in line with the reasoning in Kaur, by first considering whether compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect a relevant person existed, before deciding whether it was open to it, to exercise its discretion and waive the PIC4020(1) criteria.
4. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the PIC4020(1) criteria should not be waived, which was a conclusion that was reasonably available to the Tribunal on the evidence that was before it.

1. For the reasons given above, I find that no jurisdictional error is established and the application for judicial review is, accordingly, dismissed.

1. At the conclusion of the hearing, I invited submissions from the parties on costs.
2. The First Respondent sought costs fixed in the amount of $5,600 which is below the scale amount in Sch 2 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth). The Applicant did not object to the amount sought.
3. As the application has been dismissed, it is appropriate that costs should follow the event. The amount sought by the First Respondent is reasonable and I therefore order costs in the amount of $5,600.

I certify that the preceding eighty-five (85) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Leishman.