Boonlee v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2066

(a) The Tribunal's reasons at [15], [21], [31], [42] and [48] indicate that the Tribunal considered and had regard to the applicant's evidence of courses she was undertaking at the time of the hearing before the Tribunal, or had recently completed.

(b) The meaning of the applicant's complaint that the Tribunal did not place weight on this evidence is unclear, since evidence of the applicant's "current and future courses" (see Tribunal at [57]) and "current study plan" (see Tribunal at [63]) partly supported the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant.

FedCFamC2G|2025-12-15

The applicant appears to complain in ground 4 that the Tribunal at [61] "overlook[ed] the evidence provided". The applicant has not identified or particularised the evidence she contends the Tribunal overlooked. The Tribunal's reasons for decision indicate that it conscientiously summarised and considered the applicant's evidence. Ground 4 does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.

Contentions by applicant at hearing on 28 November 2025

The applicant told the Court that she had completed half of her course by the date of the Tribunal's decision. Her complaint to the Court appeared to be that the Tribunal did not place weight on this fact. However:

(a) The Tribunal's reasons at [15], [21], [31], [42] and [48] indicate that the Tribunal considered and had regard to the applicant's evidence of courses she was undertaking at the time of the hearing before the Tribunal, or had recently completed.

(b) The meaning of the applicant's complaint that the Tribunal did not place weight on this evidence is unclear, since evidence of the applicant's "current and future courses" (see Tribunal at [57]) and "current study plan" (see Tribunal at [63]) partly supported the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant.

This complaint does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.
The Tribunal at [68] stated that "since the applicant's arrival in Australia on 27 January 2015 the applicant has spent more than seven and a half years in Australia and only returned to Thailand on one occasion and has not returned since 2019". This evidence concerning the applicant's travel history contributed to the Tribunal's conclusion at [68] that "the applicant's incentive to return to Thailand [is] very poor". The applicant told the Court that the reason she did not return to Thailand more often was because her visa did not allow her to return to Thailand. Her complaint to the Court appeared to be that the Tribunal did not have regard to this evidence. I agree with Mr Wong's point in paragraph 29 above that if:

(a) the applicant did not have a visa which permitted her to re-enter Australia after exiting; and

(b) this was the reason she did not return to Thailand more often,

she has not established in this Court proceeding that she provided this information to the Tribunal. The Tribunal cannot have regard to information of which it was not aware. This complaint does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.

It follows from the above that the application lodged in October 2022 must be dismissed.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I invited submissions from the parties on costs. Mr Wong sought an order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs in the amount of $5,900, which was less than the first respondent's solicitor/client costs. The applicant did not oppose this order. The amount claimed by the first respondent is reasonable. I will make this order.

I certify that the preceding forty-one (41) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Zipser.

Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025

Ground 1: I agree with the first respondent at RS [19] that "absent further particulars, [this ground] is otherwise vague and meaningless". A "failure to particularise a ground of review is itself a sufficient basis to dismiss it": NWWJ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 176 at [37].
Ground 2: The applicant contends the Tribunal "did not consider all study completed". The applicant has not identified or particularised the study she claims to have completed which the Tribunal did not consider. The Tribunal at [21], [31], [32], [48], 53] and [62] clearly considered the applicant's study history, including courses she had completed. The applicant also contends that the Tribunal "made legal error" at [21] and [25], but the applicant has not explained or particularised the "legal error". Ground 2 does not identify a jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.
Ground 3: The Tribunal stated at [57]:

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (10 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)