Bhojani v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 444

1. The background of the matter was set out in the Minister's written submissions, which I primarily adopt.
2. The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. On 31 March 2021, the applicant applied for a student visa.[1]
3. On 19 January 2022, the delegate refused to grant the applicant a student visa. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily.[2] Accordingly, the delegate concluded the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 500.212 in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations).

1. On 7 February 2022, the applicant sought review of the delegate's decision in the Tribunal.[3]
2. On 3 May 2023, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide information in relation to whether he was enrolled in a registered course of study and whether he was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student by completing an online 'Request for Student Visa Information' (RSVI) form (s 359 invitation).[4]
3. On 16 May 2023, the applicant provided a completed RSVI form and attached several documents in support of his review application.[5]
4. On 12 July 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising him that it was unable to make a favourable decision on the information before it and invited him to appear at a hearing to give evidence and present arguments in relation to the issues arising in his case.[6]
5. On 17 July 2023, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a completed 'Response to hearing invitation' form and further documents in support of his review application.[7]
6. On 11 August 2023, the applicant appeared at a hearing before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments (Tribunal hearing).[8]
7. On 17 October 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to comment on or respond to information pursuant to s 359A of the Act by 31 October 2023 (s 359A letter).[9]
8. On 27 October 2023, the applicant responded to the s 359A letter by providing a Confirmation of Enrolment dated 26 October 2023 (CoE)[10] and a further letter.[11] The CoE related to a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) (Graduate Diploma) course scheduled to commence on 30 October 2023 and conclude on 2 November 2025. The accompanying letter contained an explanation from the applicant in which he acknowledged his oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing:

(a) that although he completed his Advanced Diploma, he felt he needed a further six‑month extension because his results had not yet been released and, in the event he failed a module, he might need time to re‑submit an assignment; and

(b) that whereas he had previously been equivocal about whether to pursue further studies, he now wished to obtain a student visa to undertake the Graduate Diploma because it was 'close to Master degree in the field of Management' and would 'eventually help [him] pursue [his] career'.

1. On 6 December 2023, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a student visa.[12]

1. The Tribunal identified the issue under review was the same as that before the delegate, being whether the applicant was a genuine temporary applicant for entry and stay as a student, and listed the matters to which it was required to have regard under cl 500.212 in Part 500 of Sch 2 to the Regulations, as well as the matters in Direction No. 69 - Assessing the Genuine Temporary Entrant Criterion for Student Visa and Student Guardian Visa Applications (Direction No. 69).[13] It also listed the documents provided to the Tribunal.[14]
2. The Tribunal then made the following findings regarding:

(a) The circumstances in the applicant's home country: The Tribunal noted the applicant's evidence that his spouse and two younger children continue to reside in Pakistan, and that the applicant previously lived and worked in Dubai before coming to Australia. It accepted the applicant has ongoing personal ties to Pakistan, but was not satisfied those circumstances would serve as a significant incentive to return to Pakistan. The Tribunal noted the applicant's employment in Australia, which it found to be an economic circumstance that would present as a significant incentive for him not to return to Pakistan.[15]

(b) The applicant's potential circumstances in Australia: The Tribunal noted that the applicant's eldest daughter, who is an Australian citizen, lives in Australia.[16] The applicant gave evidence at hearing that he was about to complete an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management and, subject to whether he need to stay longer if required to retake some assessment, would most likely depart after that. However, the Tribunal noted the applicant had provided the new CoE following the hearing for a further two-year course.[17] The Tribunal noted the applicant has ongoing family and employment ties to Australia which would present as strong incentives to remain in Australia.[18] While it accepted the applicant may have wished to study while in Australia because departure was not possible during COVID-19 border closures, as claimed, it noted that he had been able to complete a diploma and advanced diploma since his arrival.[19] The Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant had enrolled in a further course of study for genuine purposes and found the applicant to be using the student visa program to maintain ongoing residence.[20]

(c) The value of the course to the applicant's future: The Tribunal accepted that a graduate diploma would be a reasonable progression for a person of the applicant's educational background.[21] However, it noted that in replying to the s 359A letter, the applicant had submitted that he would be pursuing the Graduate Diploma which is close to a Master's degree in the field of Management and would eventually help him pursue his career.[22] The Tribunal found that the applicant did not explain how the Graduate Diploma course would help him pursue his career, when he already had tertiary qualifications (a Bachelor of Commerce) and a range of vocational certificates obtained in Pakistan and Dubai.[23] The Tribunal further noted that the applicant had a lengthy employment history in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates which included experience as a supervisor with a telecommunications company in Dubai, and had declared in his RSVI form (lodged before he enrolled in his Graduate Diploma) that the successful completion of his Advanced Diploma would give him the skills to work in business management roles and, based on their prior experience in the United Arab Emirates, would allow him to secure employment there, including with Etisalat Telecom Corp UAE.[24] The Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant had adequately demonstrated the value of undertaking an additional two years of study in Australia provided for in the CoE, or the relevance of the Graduate Diploma to his past or proposed future employment either in his home country or a third country.[25]

(d) Immigration history and other matters: The Tribunal considered the applicant's travel history, noting that he had not returned to Pakistan since 2017. It accepted that the applicant had visited Australia previously and departed; however, noted he had travelled to Australia as a visitor and remained onshore for nearly three years on the most recent occasion. The Tribunal further noted that the applicant enrolled in an additional course that would add a further two years to his temporary residency, and found that, based on the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia, that the student visa was being used primarily to maintain ongoing residence.[26]

1. The Tribunal, having assessed the evidence individually and cumulatively, considered that while there were aspects of the applicant's case that weighed somewhat in his favour, on balance, the weight of evidence was against the applicant in assessing whether he is a genuine temporary entrant for study.[27] Accordingly, the Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant met cl 500.212(a) in Part 500 of Sch 2 to the Regulations and affirmed the decision under review.[28]

1. By an application filed on 25 October 2019, the applicant advances nine grounds for review as follows (reproduced without alteration):
   1. That the Tribunal erred in its decision when it failed to consider the relevant facts with regard to my Student (Temporary) (class TU) (subclass 500) visa application.
   2. That the Tribunal wrongly interpreted clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
   3. That the Tribunal failed to consider the current circumstances of the applicant and the impact of the decision on the applicant's visa history, and employment.
   4. Due to the decision made by the Tribunal, the applicant has been further victimised and the principles of natural justice were not adhered to.
   5. That the Tribunal failed to consider the strong ties of the applicant to Pakistan for his incentive to return to Pakistan after completion of the applicant's studies.
   6. That the Tribunal interpreted and used direction no 69 incorrectly by using it as a checklist and not as a guide for the decision maker.
   7. That the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant's wife and two children as a significant incentive for the applicant to return home.
   8. That the tribunal gave more weight to the applicant's employment in Australia and failed to consider that the applicant was entitled to work in Australia and employment in Australia should not only be the significant factor in determining the genuine ties of the applicant.
   9. That the Tribunal considered the applicant's married daughter as a strong tie for me to remain in Australia and completely outweighed my genuine family ties in Pakistan.
2. By an affidavit filed with his originating application, the applicant made several statements in Part C. Some of those statements I will treat as submissions; others I will consider as part of the grounds the applicant seeks to advance. Those statements are as follows (reproduced without alteration):[29]
   1. I am the applicant and deponent named above.
   2. I have applied for a judicial review against a decision made by the Tribunal member on 06 December 2023.
   3. I applied for a student (Temporary) (class TU) (subclass 500) visa application on 31 March 2021.
   4. The Department of Home Affairs refused my student visa application on 19 January 2022.
   5. I applied for the merit review and the Tribunal affirmed the decision made by the delegate of the minister on 06 December 2023.
   6. The basis on which the Tribunal has affirmed it's decision is that I did not meet the criteria specified in clause 500.212. It is further stated in the decision that I did not meet the genuine entrant criterion to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily.
   7. The Department of Horne Affairs and the Tribunal did not take into account my current circumstances that I am a genuine student and I have completed my studies in Australia.
   8. The Department of Home Affairs and the Tribunal failed to consider my genuine ties in Pakistan being my wife and two children who are currently residing in Pakistan and are completely dependent on me.
   9. The Department of Home Affairs and the Tribunal gave more weight to my employment in Australia which I believe is a secondary preference in nature.
   10. I say that every student in Australia does a part-time job to meet living and some education­ related expenses.
   11. The Department of Home Affairs and the Tribunal also wrongly established my strong family ties with my married daughter who is independent and separate from me and she is currently living with her husband in Sydney.
   12. The Tribunal wilfully ignored my strong ties with my home country and did not consider a significant incentive for me to return to Pakistan after completion of my studies and to stay with my wife and other two children. Rather the tribunal by going further established my strong ties with my daughter in Sydney.
   13. I say that I am a genuine student and I have recently completed my studies. I am the victim in this matter and the decision made by the Tribunal has further victimised me.
   14. I request the honourable court to set aside the decision of the Tribunal and order the Tribunal to review my matter according to law.
   15. I have attached hereto and marked "A" (12 PAGES ONLY) copy of the decision made by the Tribunal.
   16. That it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice that the matter is to be listed for hearing so that I could defend my case in the Federal Circuit Court against the decision made by the first and second respondents.
   17. I believe that I have evidence to rely upon in the hearing which can overturn the decision made by the Tribunal.
   18. That the decision in this application will have a significant impact on my future visa applications.
   19. That In all the circumstances I ask the Honourable Court that the review application be allowed, and the relief sought be granted.

1. On 12 May 2025, the applicant attended a callover before Registrar Roberts. Orders were made, and the Registrar noted in particular that the applicant confirmed he had a copy of the Court Book and did not require the assistance of an interpreter at the final hearing.

1. On 8 July 2025, Registrar Downing made further orders listing the matter for final hearing before me on 16 October 2025. Pursuant to those orders, the applicant was invited to amend his application (if he wished to do so) and to file any written submissions and affidavit evidence by 7 August 2025. The Minister was invited to file any written submissions and affidavit evidence by 27 August 2025.

1. The hearing on 16 October 2025 commenced at 2.26 pm and concluded at 4.56 pm. The applicant appeared as a litigant in person. Mr Fyfe, a solicitor from Minter Ellison Lawyers, appeared on behalf of the Minister. Although the applicant indicated to the Registrar during the callover that he did not require the assistance of an interpreter at the final hearing, he had specified in his originating application that an interpreter was required. In those circumstances, I arranged for an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages to be available at the hearing. During the hearing, the applicant did in fact avail himself of the interpreter's services.
2. At the hearing before me, the applicant advanced a number of unsubstantiated assertions and complaints. Many of those matters could only have been established, if at all, by reference to a transcript of the Tribunal hearing. For example, the applicant asserted that he had raised certain matters before the Tribunal that were not addressed in its reasons.[30] Mindful of my duties to litigants in person, I ordered the Minister to produce that transcript. I also ordered each party to file and serve supplementary written submissions, with the applicant to do so by 13 November 2025 and the Minister by 27 November 2025. The parties subsequently provided consent orders, which I approved, extending those dates to 4 and 11 December 2025, respectively.
3. It transpired that, although the Minister filed written submissions, the Tribunal hearing transcript and supplementary written submissions, the applicant elected not to file any written submissions despite having had the opportunity to do so and to advance his case with the benefit of the Tribunal hearing transcript.

1. Accordingly, the materials before the Court include:

(a) the application for judicial review filed on 21 December 2023;

(b) the affidavit of the applicant affirmed on 21 December 2023 and filed on same date, annexed to which is a copy of the Tribunal's Decision Record dated 6 December 2023 and Statement of Decision and Reasons (AA);

(c) a Court Book numbering 199 pages (tendered into evidence at the hearing before me on 4 November 2025 by the first respondent and marked as Exhibit 1R);

(d) the written submissions of the Minister filed 27 August 2025 (MS);

(e) the affidavit of Alexander John Mowbray affirmed on 30 October 2025 and filed on same date, annexed to which is a transcript of the Tribunal hearing conducted on 11 August 2023 (Tribunal hearing transcript); and

(f) the supplementary written submissions of the Minister filed 10 December 2025 (MSS).

1. Clause 500.212 in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations provides:

The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

(a) the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

(i) the applicant's circumstances; and

(ii) the applicant's immigration history; and

(iii) if the applicant is a minor - the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

(iv) any other relevant matter; and

(b) the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:

(i) the applicant's record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and

(ii) the applicant's stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and

1. In this judicial review proceeding, the Court's task is to determine whether the Tribunal's decision is affected by jurisdictional error as that is the only basis upon which it can be set aside: s 474 of the Act; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476; HCA 2.
2. The Court has also scrutinised the application, the materials before the Tribunal and the Tribunal's decision to identify whether any jurisdictional error is disclosed, mindful of the Court's obligations towards litigants in person as outlined in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392; (2015) 238 FCR 158; FCA 1392 at [58]-[77], [100] and [112]-[113]. At hearing, the applicant was asked to explain the basis of each of his grounds, especially those that were unparticularised, and to indicate whether there was anything the Tribunal had done or failed to do during the review process, including at the Tribunal hearing, which he considered unfair or unreasonable. I explained to the applicant the limitations of the Court's role in judicial review, noting that it would be impermissible for me to entertain submissions that merely invited a reconsideration of the merits of his case. The applicant was informed that any submissions must identify, or at least point to, conduct by the Tribunal that could amount to jurisdictional error.
3. As stated above, the applicant did not file any written submissions despite having been given the opportunity to do so and to press his case with the benefit of the Tribunal hearing transcript. He did, however, make oral submissions on each of his nine grounds during the hearing and raised specific complaints concerning the Tribunal's decision and its decision‑making process. Additionally, I raised two issues for the parties to address. I now turn to consider each of those matters.
4. In doing so, I have endeavoured to recognise and give effect to the importance of these reasons to the applicant. He is unrepresented before the Court, and was likewise unrepresented before the Minister's Department and the Tribunal. He has no legal background and was emotionally invested in his case. He harbours a strong sense of grievance about what he perceives to be the unfair manner in which the Tribunal reached its decision and the consequences of that decision.
5. As Bell J observed in Tomasevic v Travaglini [2007] VSC 337; (2007) 17 VR 100; VSC 337, drawing on the observations of Smith J in R v Nilson [1971] VicRp 105; [1971] VR 853, an unrepresented litigant is often in a position of 'grave disadvantage'. The applicant in the present case is such a person. He lacks two critical qualities ordinarily possessed by competent lawyers: professional skill and ability, and objectivity.
6. Against that background, I have sought to engage comprehensively with each of the arguments advanced in this proceeding, particularly those pressed by the applicant, who is a layperson and has demonstrated difficulty appreciating the limited nature of the Court's task on judicial review and the requirement to focus on what he may regard as unduly narrow legal issues. While I need not write a treatise, I have sought to provide sufficient reasons to enable the applicant to understand how his case was decided.

1. By ground 1, the applicant pleads the Tribunal erred by failing to consider relevant facts concerning his student visa application.
2. By the MS, the Minister submitted the applicant has not particularised what 'relevant facts' the Tribunal overlooked to be the subject of a meaningful response. For that reason alone, the Minister submitted that the ground should be dismissed: WZAVW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 760 at [35] per Gilmour J.
3. At the hearing before me, I drew the applicant's attention to paragraphs [7], [8] and [13] of the AA.[31] In those paragraphs, the applicant submitted that neither the Department nor the Tribunal had taken into account his current circumstances, including his assertion that he is a 'genuine student' who has completed his studies in Australia, and his view that he regarded himself as a 'victim' in the matter and that the Tribunal's decision had 'further victimised' him. I asked the applicant to clarify what he meant by 'victimised'.[32] The applicant submitted that the refusals of his application by both the Department and the Tribunal amounted, in his view, to 'victimisation'. More specifically, he described the refusals as causing him 'psychological victimisation'.[33]
4. Mr Fyfe, the Minister's representative, orally submitted the applicant's claim that he feels 'victimised' amounts to no more than a disagreement with the Tribunal's decision. It does not identify any error in the Tribunal's reasoning and therefore does not constitute a proper ground of judicial review. On that basis, Mr Fyfe concluded that the ground could not be made out.[34]
5. Having considered the applicant's ground, and oral submissions, at their highest, there is nothing in the Tribunal's decision indicative of the Tribunal having failed consider any evidence or submissions as part of its fact-finding endeavour and broader evaluative assessment of the applicant against the criteria in cl 500.212(a). The Tribunal's reasons evince an orthodox and correct application of the legislative regime identified in its reasons to the facts as disclosed on the material before it. While I acknowledge the applicant is entitled to his feelings, I am not in a position to entertain those submissions as part of my consideration as they simply do not identify or point towards how the Tribunal erred in a legal sense.
6. I therefore accept the Minister's submissions and find this ground does not disclose jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

1. By ground 2, the applicant pleads '[t]hat the Tribunal wrongly interpreted cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations'.
2. By the MS, the Minister submitted that the Tribunal's findings were open to it and its reasoning disclosed a proper evaluation of the applicant's evidence that was logical, rational, and had a probative basis in the circumstances: DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 258 FCR 175; [2018] FCAFC 2 at [30] per Kenny, Kerr and Perry JJ.
3. At hearing before me, the applicant submitted that matters relevant to his case were 'wrongly interpreted'.[35] When asked by the Court what had been misinterpreted and in what way, the applicant explained that he had not been granted a visa and that his 'genuine interest' in education had not been considered.[36] After I sought further clarification, the applicant confirmed that he was referring specifically to his genuine interest in education.[37]
4. At hearing, Mr Fyfe argued that, insofar as ground 2 can be understood as alleging that the Tribunal failed to consider the value of the applicant's course to his future, the Tribunal plainly addressed that issue.[38] At [15]-[17] of its reasons, the Tribunal noted that the proposed course was a Graduate Diploma of Management and considered whether it would improve the applicant's employment prospects in his home country or elsewhere. It accepted that the course represented a reasonable educational progression. The Tribunal had also considered the applicant's employment history, including his experience in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, but was not satisfied the applicant had demonstrated that the course would materially enhance his employment prospects.[39] Mr Fyfe concluded that this was a finding reasonably open on the evidence, and that ground 2 cannot be made out on the material presently before the Court.
5. Having considered the applicant's ground, and oral submissions, at their highest, there is nothing in the Tribunal's decision indicative of the Tribunal having misinterpreted or misapplied cl 500.212. Again, the Tribunal's reasons evince an orthodox and correct application of the legislative regime identified in its reasons to the facts as disclosed on the material before it. In particular, the Tribunal properly focussed upon whether the applicant intends to stay in Australia temporarily based upon criteria prescribed in cl 500.212(a)(i)-(iv) and considered the submissions and evidence before it as they related to those criteria.
6. Further, there is nothing before this Court that could sustain the assertion that the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant's claims insofar as they related to his interest in his proposed course of study, or to education more generally. The Tribunal's reasons demonstrate recognition of the applicant's submissions and evidence concerning his previous studies, his decision to study in Australia, the interruptions to his studies caused by the COVID‑19 pandemic, and his decision to embark upon further Graduate Diploma studies in Australia. While I acknowledge that the applicant may feel aggrieved by the Tribunal's finding that he had not sufficiently demonstrated the value of undertaking a further two years of study in Australia, or the relevance of those studies to his past and proposed employment, I accept the Minister's submission that this was a finding reasonably open on the evidence.
7. This ground does not disclose jurisdictional error.

1. By ground 3, the applicant pleads '[t]hat the Tribunal failed to consider the current circumstances of the applicant and the impact of the decision on the applicant's visa history, and employment'.
2. By MS [26]-[32], the Minister submitted that the Tribunal expressly considered at [13]-[14] of its reasons the applicant's current circumstances, including his family, study and employment circumstances. The Minister further submitted that to the extent that the applicant contends that the Tribunal failed to consider the impact of its decision on the applicant's visa history and employment, the Tribunal was not obliged to do so nor had the applicant raised a clearly articulated claim in relation to these issues. It was further submitted that this ground amounts to no more than a statement of disagreement with the weight the Tribunal gave to each consideration, which was a matter for the Tribunal: Inderjit v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCAFC 217; (2019) 272 FCR 528; FCAFC 217 (Inderjit) at [41] per Rares, Burley and O'Bryan JJ.
3. At hearing, the applicant stated that he had strong management experience in his home country and that the course he undertook in Australia was relevant to, and would have enhanced, that experience.[40] He contended that the Tribunal did not consider this and instead focused on the significant gap in his formal education between 1990 and 2021.[41] He further stated that he had chosen the course because it aligned with his prior management experience and that completing it would have benefited his career. He asserted that he had explained this relevance to the Tribunal at the hearing, but I observed he had not filed any transcript or other evidence to substantiate that assertion.[42] I explained to the applicant that his statements amounted to submissions, not evidence, and explained that without evidence the point may not be persuasive.[43] I outlined that, if the applicant wished to substantiate his assertion, he could either give sworn evidence or obtain and file the Tribunal hearing transcript. The applicant ultimately stated that he could not recall the Tribunal hearing with sufficient accuracy to give sworn evidence and accepted that the Court would treat his statements as submissions only.[44]
4. By way of oral submissions, Mr Fyfe argued that the applicant's argument fails at a 'fundamental level'[45] because the Tribunal expressly addressed the value of the applicant's education to his future employment. In particular, at [16] of its reasons, the Tribunal set out the applicant's evidence, noting his previous employment in both the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan and engaged with that material in some detail. Mr Fyfe argued that, in light of the Tribunal's explicit consideration of this issue, the applicant's submission, whether referable to this ground or any other, cannot succeed on the facts. I then asked Mr Fyfe whether the applicant's oral submission before me that he told the Tribunal that the course he undertook would have assisted him upon returning to Pakistan, might constitute an incentive to return.[46] I observed that this did not appear in the Tribunal's stated findings. Mr Fyfe submitted that any such claim was subsumed within the Tribunal's discussion of the value of the course to the applicant's future and its extract of the applicant's evidence set out at [16] of the Tribunal's reasons. Mr Fyfe noted that the Tribunal was not required to repeat evidence under different headings in its reasons. I then suggested to Mr Fyfe that the Tribunal's reasons appeared to move from reproducing the applicant's evidence to a conclusory statement at [17] without clearly explaining why it was not persuaded.[47] I noted that reasons must logically connect the evidence to the conclusion and that the absence of reasoning, particularly in light of the applicant's submissions, might be problematic. Mr Fyfe responded that the absence of detailed reasons does not itself establish illogicality; the question was whether the conclusion was reasonably open on the evidence.[48] Mr Fyfe concluded that [16], read fairly, sufficiently set out the Tribunal's concerns, namely, that the applicant had not explained the relevance of the course, particularly in response to the s 359A letter.
5. Taking the ground at its highest, I accept the Minister's submission at MS [27]. Having considered the parties' oral submissions, and the Tribunal's reasons, I am unpersuaded by the applicant's oral submissions and find greater force in the Minister's submissions. Notably, the applicant elected not to substantiate the assertion he made at hearing despite the Minister having filed the Tribunal hearing transcript and him being afforded a post‑hearing opportunity to review it and file supplementary written submissions. That said, I have reviewed the Tribunal hearing transcript and note the following to be the only exchange that might arguably contain evidence in support of the applicant's assertion at hearing:[49]

Just explain to me why you wanted to study leadership and management here?---This is a good question. Because I have done some courses in the past with project management. So I really wanted to do this leadership thing, which helped me to, like - be a leader, be a management role. To be precisely in the management role.

All the experience that you have working in Dubai and having a fairly high level qualifications anyway, didn't that lead you to a management position?---So I was actually more of a technical position in Dubai. I was working as an operation - in the operation for the technical department, and dealing with issues with internet, with mobile issues. So more of a technical thing. So I've done - that's why so many technical courses are passed.

Okay?---And that's why I said I'm interesting for this course which is cybersecurity, which is (indistinct).

When you have finished studying, are you planning to go back to Dubai or Pakistan?---Pakistan, I don't (indistinct).

Okay?---That time, the (indistinct) the company that I was working, they issue me the visa.

Sorry. What company did what, sorry?---This a (indistinct) communication company basically.

Yes, right. So you're planning to work again in Pakistan when you go back?---Yes. I will look for the opportunity in Pakistan based on the certificate that I got here.

1. At [16] of its reasons, as part of its assessment of the value of the proposed course to the applicant's future, the Tribunal plainly recognised the applicant's 'lengthy employment history in Pakistan and United Arab Emirates' and referred to the applicant's oral evidence in relation to the 'technical' nature of his employment in Dubai. It further recognised the applicant had declared in his RSVI form (lodged before he enrolled in his Graduate Diploma) that the successful completion of his Advanced Diploma would give him the skills to work in business management roles and, based on their prior experience in the United Arab Emirates, would allow him to secure employment there, including with Etisalat Telecom Corp UAE. Having considered that evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant had adequately demonstrated the value of undertaking an additional two years of study in Australia provided for in the CoE, or the relevance of the Graduate Diploma to the applicant's past or proposed future employment either in his home country or a third country. In my view, that conclusion was reasonably open on the evidence.
2. This ground does not disclose jurisdictional error.

1. By ground 4 the applicant pleads that '[d]ue to the decision made by the tribunal, the applicant has been further victimised, and the principles of natural justice were not adhered to'. By paragraph [13] of the AA, the applicant stated that he is a genuine student who has recently completed his studies, and that he considers himself a victim in the matter. He submitted that the Tribunal's decision had 'further victimised' him.
2. At hearing, I recited paragraph [13] of the AA to the applicant and inquired whether his feeling of victimisation might possibly connect to how he may have been treated by the Tribunal at hearing. The applicant explained that he experienced psychological and emotional distress as a result of both the Department and the Tribunal rejecting his application. He stated that he had completed a diploma, had already paid fees for an advanced diploma, and was actively studying when he received the decision stating that his case was 'not genuine'.[50] He said that this caused him significant psychological pressure, and described this to be a form of 'victimisation'.
3. By the MS, the Minister submitted that, even when read generously, ground 4 alleges a denial of procedural fairness but is misconceived. The Minister contends that the Tribunal complied with its statutory procedural fairness obligations under Div 5 of Pt 5 of the Act, which, pursuant to s 357A, provides an exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule. The applicant was invited to a hearing to address the determinative issues, which were the same as those before the delegate, thereby affording him a full opportunity to present evidence and submissions, consistent with the principles in SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR  152; HCA 63 at [47]. The Minister further submitted that the Tribunal also complied with its obligations under s 359A. In particular, the s 359A letter:

(a) gave the applicant clear particulars of information which it considered would be the reasons for affirming the decision under review: ss 359A(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. In particular, the Tribunal noted that the Provider Registration and International Student Management System records available to the Tribunal indicated that the applicant was not currently enrolled in a course of study in Australia and that his last enrolment was for an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management completed on 4 June 2023. It was noted in the s359A letter that this information was relevant to the review because the Regulations state that at the time of the Tribunal's decision, to be eligible for the grant of a student visa, an applicant must be enrolled in a full-time registered course of study and that if the Tribunal relied on the information indicating he was not enrolled to study, it may lead to the decision under review being affirmed;

(b) gave the applicant the prescribed period of notice, being 14 days, to comment on or respond to that adverse information: ss 359B(2) and 359A(1)(c) of the Act and reg 4.17(4)(b)(i) of the Regulations;

(c) was sent by a method specified in ss 379A(5)(b) and (d) of the Act, namely by email to the applicant's last known email address; and

(d) specified how the applicant was to respond (i.e. in writing): s 359B(1)(b) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Minister submitted that the Tribunal fully complied with its statutory procedural fairness obligations, and ground 4 must fail.

1. Again, while I acknowledge the difficulties many applicants may experience upon receiving an unfavourable Tribunal decision, and while the applicant in the present case is entitled to his feelings, I am not in a position to entertain his expressions of dissatisfaction as part of any assessment of whether the Tribunal erred in a legal sense. I therefore accept the Minister's submissions and find that this ground does not disclose jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

1. By ground 5, the applicant pleads '[t]hat the Tribunal failed to consider the strong ties of the applicant to Pakistan for his incentive to return to Pakistan after completion of the applicant's studies'. By paragraph [8] of the AA, the applicant submitted that 'the Department of Home Affairs and the Tribunal failed to consider my genuine ties in Pakistan being my wife and two children who are currently residing in Pakistan and are completely dependent on me'.
2. By MS [26]-[32], the Minister submitted the Tribunal expressly considered at [11] of its reasons the applicant's ties to Pakistan, including his wife and two youngest children continuing to reside there. It was further submitted that this ground amounts to no more than a statement of disagreement with the weight the Tribunal gave to each consideration, which was a matter for the Tribunal: Inderjit at [41].
3. At hearing, the applicant submitted that he has strong management experience in Pakistan and that the course he undertook in Australia would have enhanced his ability to train new staff upon his return.[51] He stated that he owns property in Pakistan and his wife and family are there, which he described as strong personal ties demonstrating that he would always return. He contended that he had provided the relevant information to both the Department and the Tribunal on multiple occasions about these factors and they should have been considered by the Tribunal in assessing his circumstances. He further stated the Tribunal had questioned him at the hearing about how he funded his studies and that he had told the Tribunal he was working part‑time in the automotive industry, as permitted under his visa conditions. He submitted that the Tribunal treated his part‑time employment as an indication that he might not return to Pakistan, a conclusion he considered unfair, noting that 'everybody does the job'.[52] He referred to [13] of the Tribunal's reasons, where his role as a customer service adviser at a car dealership is noted, and maintained that the Tribunal improperly used his employment as a basis for inferring an incentive to remain in Australia.
4. Mr Fyfe submitted the Tribunal had expressly considered the applicant's personal ties to Pakistan at [11]-[12] of its reasons, noting his spouse, younger children, and prior employment in Pakistan and Dubai.[53] He submitted that the Tribunal accepted these matters as ties but concluded they were not a significant incentive for the applicant to return, and that the applicant's disagreement with that characterisation did not disclose jurisdictional error. Mr Fyfe submitted that, for error to be established, the applicant would need to show illogicality or irrationality in the Tribunal's reasoning in this regard and none was apparent. Mr Fyfe concluded the Tribunal had engaged in a legitimate balancing of the factors pertaining to the applicant's incentives to depart and remain in Australia and reached a conclusion that was reasonably open on the evidence.
5. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Tribunal hearing transcript, and the Tribunal's reasons at [11]-[14], I am persuaded by Minister's submissions. I therefore find that this ground does not disclose jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

1. By ground 6, the applicant pleads '[t]hat the Tribunal interpreted and used direction no 69 incorrectly by using it as a checklist and not as a guide for the decision maker'.
2. By MS [22], the Minister submitted that this ground fails at a factual level as the Tribunal had considered the applicant's evidence and circumstances, as well as the relevant factors in Direction No. 69 that were the subject of clearly articulated claims, and at [19] of its reasons came to a conclusion after weighing the factors both for and against affirming the decision under review: c.f. Kaur v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 2026 at [31] per Steward J. Further, the Tribunal expressly recognised at [10] of its reasons that the factors in Direction No. 69 should not be used as a checklist, but rather as a guide.
3. At hearing, when pressed to further particularise this ground, the applicant made the following statement:[54]

My case was genuine. My case was not to migrate here, but to get education here which is recognised everywhere.

1. Mr Fyfe submitted that this ground could not succeed because the Tribunal expressly noted at [10] of its reasons that the Direction was not to be applied mechanically, referred to the Direction as a mandatory relevant consideration, and structured its reasons consistently with the factors it was required to address and had not engaged in a 'box-ticking exercise'.[55] Mr Fyfe observed that the Tribunal considered the applicant's ties to Pakistan, his circumstances in Australia, the value of the course to his future, and other relevant matters, and came to a conclusion after assessing those matters as required by cl 500.212(a).
2. I raised with Mr Fyfe that the applicant had suggested his intention was not to migrate but to study, and queried whether he wished to address that point.[56] Mr Fyfe submitted that this was simply a reiteration of the applicant's argument about the value of the course to his future, which the Tribunal dealt with at [16]-[17] of its reasons.[57] I then sought clarification from Mr Fyfe as to which course the Tribunal had in fact assessed. There was some initial confusion, as the evidence before the Tribunal included a reference to a Graduate Diploma of Management Learning from the Crown Institute of Business and Technology, whereas the Tribunal's reasons referred to a 'graduate diploma of management'.[58] Mr Fyfe submitted that the Tribunal must be taken to have been referring to the same course, namely, the Graduate Diploma, and that the Tribunal proceeded on that basis.
3. Having considered the parties' oral submissions, the Tribunal hearing transcript, and the Tribunal's reasons at [11]-[14], I am persuaded by Minister's submissions. I acknowledge the applicant's statement at hearing before me, but find it rises no higher than an invitation to engage in impermissible merits review. I therefore find that this ground does not disclose jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

1. By ground 7, the applicant pleads '[t]hat the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant's wife and two children as a significant incentive for the applicant to return home'. By paragraph [12] of the AA, the applicant deposed:

The Tribunal wilfully ignored my strong ties with my home country and did not consider a significant incentive for me to return to Pakistan after completion of my studies and to stay with my wife and other two children. Rather the tribunal by going further established my strong ties with my daughter in Sydney.

1. By MS [26]-[32], the Minister submitted the Tribunal expressly considered at [11] of its reasons the applicant's ties to Pakistan, including his wife and two youngest children continuing to reside there. It was submitted that the Tribunal at [14] of its reasons acknowledged that the applicant's daughter was an Australian citizen and resided in Australia and considered that his ongoing family ties in Australia presented as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. It was further submitted that his ground amounts to no more than a statement of disagreement with the weight the Tribunal gave to each consideration, which was a matter for the Tribunal: Inderjit at [41].
2. At hearing, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal failed to give proper consideration to his family ties in Pakistan.[59] He contended that the Tribunal instead focused on the fact that his daughter lives in Australia and treated that as outweighing, or negating, his strong ties to Pakistan.
3. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Tribunal hearing transcript, and the Tribunal's reasons at [11]-[14], I am persuaded by Minister's submissions. I acknowledge that the applicant is dissatisfied with the Tribunal's approach to weighing his claims and evidence when conducting its assessment, but I do not find that the Tribunal erred in that assessment. The degree of weight to be given to evidence is a factual question for the decision-maker alone: see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZJSS [2010] HCA 48; (2010) 243 CLR 164; HCA 48 (SZJSS) at [33]. The comments of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510; HCA 14 (Abebe) at [197] warrant emphasis in this context:

In the end, the criticisms made by the applicant of the Tribunal's reasoning are criticisms of the factual findings it made and are criticisms that fasten upon the weight that the Tribunal attributed to various pieces of information that it had available for consideration. But what weight the Tribunal gave to those various pieces of information was for it to say.

1. In my view, the Tribunal's approach to the evidence was considered, and the reasons it gave for its evaluation of the factual matrix were neither illogical nor irrational. I therefore find that this ground does not disclose jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

1. By ground 8, the applicant pleads '[t]hat the tribunal gave more weight to the applicant's employment in Australia and failed to consider that the applicant was entitled to work in Australia and employment in Australia should not only be the significant factor in determining the genuine ties of the applicant'. By paragraph [9] of the AA, the applicant deposed:

The Department of Home Affairs and the Tribunal gave more weight to my employment in Australia which I believe is a secondary preference in nature.

1. By MS [26]-[32], the Minister submitted the Tribunal raised no concerns with the applicant's employment in Australia, but rather, found at [12] of its reasons that his employment was a significant incentive for him not to return to Pakistan. It was further submitted that his ground amounts to no more than a statement of disagreement with the weight the Tribunal gave to each consideration, which was a matter for the Tribunal: Inderjit at [41].
2. At the hearing, I indicated to the applicant that I understood his complaint to be that, although he was lawfully entitled to work in Australia, the Tribunal appeared to treat his part‑time employment as a significant factor weighing against him.[60] I put to him that he seemed to be saying the Tribunal had given undue weight to his Australian employment when assessing his genuine ties to Australia and Pakistan, whereas he considered that factor to be secondary or of limited relevance, and I asked whether that was his position. The applicant confirmed that this was '100 per cent' an accurate characterisation of the complaint raised by this ground.[61]
3. Mr Fyfe submitted that this ground cannot succeed because the Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's circumstances objectively, including any factors that might operate as incentives either to remain in Australia or to return to Pakistan.[62] Employment in Australia was one such circumstance and formed only one component of the overall evaluative balance. The Tribunal also considered the presence of the applicant's daughter in Australia and the length of his stay in Australia. It was argued that there is nothing illogical or unfair in treating employment as a tie to Australia. The Tribunal did not suggest that the applicant was prohibited from working; rather, it treated his employment as an objective circumstance relevant to assessing his incentives. Taken together with other factors, the Tribunal considered that these ties to Australia outweighed the incentives to return to Pakistan. Mr Fyfe submitted that this reasoning was logical, open on the evidence, and disclosed no error.[63]
4. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Tribunal hearing transcript, and the Tribunal's reasons at [11]-[14], I am persuaded by Minister's submissions. Again, I acknowledge that the applicant is dissatisfied with the Tribunal's approach to weighing his claims and evidence when conducting its assessment, but I do not find that the Tribunal erred in that assessment. The degree of weight to be given to evidence is a factual question for the decision-maker alone: see SZJSS at [33]; Abebe at [197]. Its approach to the evidence was considered, and the reasons it gave for its evaluation of the factual matrix were neither illogical nor irrational. The findings reached were open on the evidence. I therefore find that this ground does not disclose jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

1. By ground 9, the applicant pleads '[t]hat the Tribunal considered the applicant's married daughter as a strong tie for me to remain in Australia and completely outweighed my genuine family ties in Pakistan'. By paragraph [11] of the AA, the applicant deposed:

The Department of Home Affairs and the Tribunal also wrongly established my strong family ties with my married daughter who is independent and separate from me and she is currently living with her husband in Sydney with her husband.

1. By MS [26]-[32], the Minister submitted the Tribunal acknowledged at [13]-[14] of its reasons that the applicant's daughter was an Australian citizen and resided in Australia and considered that his ongoing family ties in Australia presented as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. It was further submitted that this ground amounts to no more than a statement of disagreement with the weight the Tribunal gave to each consideration, which was a matter for the Tribunal: Inderjit at [41].
2. At hearing, the applicant declined to expand on this ground by way of oral submissions in chief.
3. Mr Fyfe argued that the applicant's relationship with his daughter was only one aspect of the broader factual matrix before the Tribunal. He noted that the Tribunal also considered the applicant's employment in Australia and the significant period he had lived in Australia, and weighed those matters against his circumstances and family ties in Pakistan. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the incentives favouring continued residence in Australia were stronger than those drawing him back to Pakistan. It was contended that this evaluative assessment was logically open to the Tribunal and disclosed no illogicality or error. To the extent paragraph [12] of the AA raises matters similar to those in ground 8, the Minister relied on the submissions made in relation to that ground.[64]
4. In reply, the applicant sought to emphasise two points. First, he objected to the weight the Tribunal had placed on his daughter's presence in Australia. He maintained that his primary family, his wife and two daughters, remained in Pakistan, and that those ties were far more significant. Second, he took issue with the Tribunal's reliance on his part‑time employment in Australia as an indicator that he might not return to Pakistan. He submitted that 'everybody does part‑time jobs' while studying, and that his employment should not have been treated as a meaningful factor suggesting an intention to remain in Australia.[65]
5. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Tribunal hearing transcript, and the Tribunal's reasons at [11]-[14], I am persuaded by the Minister's submissions. The applicant's relationship with his Australian citizen daughter and employment in Australia were factors the Tribunal was entitled to take into account as part of the overall evaluative balance. Again, I acknowledge that the applicant is dissatisfied with the Tribunal's approach to weighing his claims and evidence when conducting its assessment, but I do not find that the Tribunal erred in that assessment. The degree of weight to be given to evidence is a factual question for the decision-maker alone: see SZJSS at [33]; Abebe at [197]. The Tribunal's approach to the evidence was considered, and the reasons it gave for its evaluation of the factual matrix were neither illogical nor irrational. The findings reached were open on the evidence. I therefore find that this ground does not disclose jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

Further ground raised in the applicant's affidavit

1. By paragraph [10] of the AA, the applicant deposed 'that every student in Australia does a part-time job to meet living and some education­related expenses'.
2. At the hearing, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal had wrongly treated his part‑time employment in the automotive sector as indicating that he would not return to Pakistan.[66] He emphasised that many students work to support their studies and that his employment was simply a means of paying his fees, not evidence of any intention to migrate.[67] The applicant reiterated that his intention was education, not migration, and that his work was undertaken only to meet living and course expenses. I queried whether he wished to contend that the Tribunal's conclusion was unreasonable because it had overlooked or misunderstood his submission that many students in Australia work part‑time while studying. The applicant confirmed that this was his position. I explained that, unless he could identify where in the evidentiary record he had made that submission to the Tribunal and therefore demonstrate how the Tribunal had erred in reaching its conclusion, his points risked amounting merely to an agitation of the merits of his case rather than a demonstration of jurisdictional error.[68] The applicant then referred me to [12] of the Tribunal's reasons and submitted that the Tribunal had formed the view that his role as a customer service adviser in a car dealership suggested he might not return to Pakistan.[69] I asked him to identify where in the Court Book the Tribunal had been provided with the submission he sought to advance before me and any evidence describing his job. He said that this information had been given orally at the Tribunal hearing. The applicant maintained that, during that hearing, the Member had asked about his job and had then concluded - wrongly, in his view - that his employment meant he would not return to Pakistan.
3. Having considered the applicant's submissions, the evidentiary record, and the Tribunal's reasons, I am unwilling to find that the applicant's submissions reveal error on the Tribunal's part. Notably, the applicant elected not to substantiate those submissions despite the Minister having filed the Tribunal hearing transcript and despite being afforded a post‑hearing opportunity to review it and file supplementary written submissions. Nevertheless, I have reviewed the Tribunal hearing transcript and note the following to be the only exchange that might arguably contain evidence pertinent to the complaint advanced at hearing before me (non-party name deidentified):[70]

And so how do you support yourself while you're here?---Yes. I just want to show you; this is a good question. I was working here, and this is the first time that I'm (indistinct) if you go and see this. This is a letter from ATO. I'm paying the taxes also.

What's the employment you've been doing here?---I'm working with [a car dealership], the figures what I make. And because I have full access full rights. Voting rights. So I'm working with them.

1. The applicant also declared in the RSVI form that he had been working as a Customer Service Advisor since April 2023 and was paid an annual salary of AUD 48,000.[71] He further stated, in a letter to the Tribunal that, since being permitted to work in Australia in September 2022, he had been employed as a Service Adviser for a car dealership, and that he obtained this position due to his 'profound experience in the field of customer care'.[72]
2. There is nothing in the evidentiary record to support the applicant's assertion before me that he made a submission to the Tribunal that many students in Australia work part‑time while studying, nor that any such submission was overlooked or misunderstood. The Tribunal's reasons at [12] do not disclose any misapprehension or mischaracterisation of the applicant's evidence concerning his Australian employment. In my view, it was plainly open to the Tribunal to treat his work at an Australian car dealership as an economic circumstance providing a significant incentive for him to remain in Australia. I acknowledge the applicant's dissatisfaction with the weight the Tribunal gave to his claims and evidence; however, I do not accept that the Tribunal erred in conducting that evaluative task. Its approach to the evidence was considered, and its reasons for its assessment of the factual matrix were neither illogical nor irrational. This ground therefore discloses no jurisdictional error.

1. At the hearing, I identified two issues arising from the following circumstances:

(a) the applicant was not enrolled in any course of study at the time of the Tribunal hearing;

(b) the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s 359A of the Act, identifying that his lack of enrolment in a course of study in Australia might be a reason to affirm the decision, and seeking further information from him on this matter;

(c) the applicant responded to the s 359A letter by providing the CoE and a further letter explaining why he continued to seek to be granted a student visa and why he had had enrolled in the Graduate Diploma course; and

(d) the Tribunal found at [16] of its reasons that the applicant had not, in that letter, explained the value of the Graduate Diploma to his career, given his previous qualifications (inadequate explanation finding).

1. As stated above, the applicant's letter contained an explanation in which he acknowledged his oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing:

(a) that although he completed his Advanced Diploma, he felt he needed a further six‑month extension because his results had not yet been released and, in the event he failed a module, he might need time to re‑submit an assignment; and

(b) that whereas he had previously been equivocal about whether to pursue further studies, he now wished to obtain a student visa to undertake the Graduate Diploma because it was 'close to Master degree in the field of Management' and would 'eventually help [him] pursue [his] career'.

1. The issues are whether, in circumstances where the Tribunal's s 359A letter did not call for an explanation of the value of any course to the applicant's future, and where the Graduate Diploma was not specifically discussed at the Tribunal hearing:

(a) the Tribunal's inadequate explanation finding was reasonably and logically open to it; and

(b) the Tribunal's decision not to invite the applicant to provide further information pursuant to ss 359 and 360 of the Act was legally unreasonable.

1. Having closely reviewed the applicant's letter sent to the Tribunal and the Tribunal's reasons at [15]-[17], for the reasons that follow, both issues are resolved in favour of the Minister.
2. First, the Minister submitted in the MSS that the Tribunal's 'inadequate explanation' finding at [16] was grounded in the absence of any persuasive account of how the Graduate Diploma course would assist the applicant's career in circumstances where 'he already has tertiary qualifications (a Bachelor of Commerce) and a range of vocational certificates obtained in Pakistan and Dubai'. It was further submitted that this finding should not be understood as suggesting that the Tribunal expected the applicant to address those matters in response to the s 359A letter. Rather, the finding was no more than an evaluative assessment of the statement the applicant in fact provided. On that basis, it was contended that the Tribunal's conclusion was factually accurate and therefore logically open to it. I accept those submissions.
3. Second, the Minister submitted in the MSS that the Tribunal reasonably exercised its discretion not to invite the applicant to provide further information under s 359 or to attend a further hearing under s 360 of the Act. It was contended that the Tribunal had already heard extensive evidence from the applicant concerning whether he was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, which was the dispositive issue before both the delegate and the Tribunal. In particular, the applicant explained at the hearing that he wished to undertake courses in leadership and management to facilitate a transition from a technical to a managerial role. Although the specific Graduate Diploma the applicant later proposed to study was not addressed during the hearing, his intention to remain in Australia to pursue further study was clearly articulated. Moreover, while the applicant's post‑hearing letter stated that he was availing himself of the opportunity to provide further information, it offered little beyond a general assertion that the Graduate Diploma would assist his career, and did not meaningfully explain its relevance in light of his existing qualifications. In those circumstances, the Minister submitted that the applicant had been afforded, and had taken, the opportunity to make submissions about the value of the proposed course, and that the Tribunal's decision not to seek further information had an evident and intelligible justification: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; HCA 18 at [76] (Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ). I accept those submissions.
4. Further, the Minister submitted in the MSS that the Tribunal's conclusion at [17] - that the applicant had not 'adequately demonstrated the value of undertaking an additional two years of study in Australia, or the relevance of the Graduate Diploma of Management to his past or proposed future employment' - was logically open to it. That conclusion was said to flow from the Tribunal's consideration at [15]-[16] of the applicant's prior education, his substantial employment history in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, and the statements he made about those matters. The Minister contended that no relevant evidence was overlooked in reaching that conclusion. On that basis, it was argued that neither the 'inadequate explanation' finding at [16] nor the conclusion at [17] was of a kind that no rational or logical decision‑maker could reach on the same material: Minister for Immigration v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; HCA 16 at [130] (Crennan and Bell JJ). I accept those submissions.
5. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Tribunal's decision lacked a rational or intelligible foundation, was arbitrary or plainly unjust, or otherwise evinced that it had engaged in a reasoning process, or arrived at an outcome, in a manner that took it beyond the limits of its statutory power. I therefore find that neither of these issues discloses jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

1. The application for judicial review made by the applicant has failed to identify any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
2. Accordingly, the application before the Court is dismissed.
3. I will hear the parties as to costs.

I certify that the preceding one hundred (100) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Papadopoulos.

[13] CB 189 to 191, [3], [7]-[10].

[29] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p6 lines 1 to 46.

[30] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p18 lines 1 to 6.

[31] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p15 lines 12 to 44.

[32] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p15 line 31.

[33] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p15 lines 33 to 44.

[34] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p28 lines 42 to 46.

[35] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p16 lines 12 to 17.

[36] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p16 lines 21 to 22.

[37] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p16 line 34.

[38] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p32 lines 44 to 47, p 33 lines 1 to 11.

[39] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p32 lines 44 to 47, p 33 lines 1 to 11.

[40] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p16 lines 41 to 43.

[41] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p17 lines 5 to 12.

[42] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p18 lines 17 to 25.

[43] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p18 lines 17 to 25.

[44] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p18 line 40.

[45] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p34 lines 17 to 22.

[46] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p36 lines 11 to 28.

[47] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p37 lines 14 to 17.

[48] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p37 lines 24 to 35.

[49] Tribunal hearing transcript, p6 line 39 to p7 line 19.

[50] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p20 lines 10 to 11.

[51] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p20 lines 27 to 34.

[52] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p21 line 36.

[53] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p34 lines 35 to 42.

[54] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p22 lines 29 to 30.

[55] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p42 lines 12 to 22.

[56] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p42 lines 30 to 35.

[57] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p42 lines 37 to 39.

[58] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p42 line 47.

[59] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p23 lines 1 to 6.

[60] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p23 lines 24 to 28.

[61] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p23 line 30.

[62] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p44 lines 27 to 47.

[63] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p44 lines 27 to 47.

[64] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p44 line 47 to p45 line 16.

[65] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p49 lines 1 to 22.

[66] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p24 lines 25 to 27.

[67] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p24 lines 32 to 35.

[68] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p24 lines 37 to 42.

[69] Transcript of Court proceedings on 16 October 2025, p25 lines 29 to 31.

[70] Tribunal hearing transcript, p6 lines 30 to 37.