The applicant has requested that the Tribunal refer her case to the Department for consideration by the Minister pursuant to s 351 of the Act which gives the Minister a discretion to substitute for a decision of the Tribunal another decision that is more favourable to the applicant, if the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so.
On 11 August 2025, the Tribunal received the representative's post-hearing written submissions. In summary, the representative submits the applicant meets Minister's guidelines (which are published on the website of the Department) 4 because:
1. She has compassionate circumstances regarding her named medical condition.
  1. She was a genuine student at the time she applied for the visa.
2. She has been a victim of unfair AI systems experimentation, contrary to her rights under Articles 7 & 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Her student visa was refused by an AI based integrity checking.
3. Her Subclass 485 graduate visa was refused unfairly due to an arbitrary, technical requirement to include her evidence of her English language result with the visa application, which she omitted to provide due to a side effect of her named medical condition. Her English test result far exceeded the statutory requirement for grant of the visa.
4. The applicant made an earlier application for Ministerial intervention related to the Subclass 485 visa (the first MI application) which was summarily dismissed in April 2020. The first MI application was dismissed under guidelines that in 2023 the High Court in Davis 5 found were unlawful. The Ministerial Intervention Unit should consider granting a Subclass 485 visa to the applicant.
5. The age eligibility for the Subclass 485 visa was lowered from 50 to 35 years of age in July 2024. The applicant is unfairly and unreasonably no longer able to meet the criteria for that visa.

4 immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/status-resolution-services/ministerial-intervention

5 Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 10

The applicant may be subject to a s 48 bar, public interest, return, general temporary entrant criteria, restricting her subsequent visa options. She has no prospects to remain legally in Australia beyond the completion of her studies.

The representative concludes the Tribunal should refer the applicant to the Minister for intervention, particularly due allegedly unlawful dismissal of the first MI application. With the post-hearing submission, the representative provided the provided the applicant's IELTS test report form, the letter from the Department dismissing the first MI application and a report from the Australia Financial Review critical of the use of automation in processing visas by the Department.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant's case and the ministerial guidelines relating to the discretionary power set out in Department policy but has decided not to refer the matter. While the Tribunal is sympathetic to the medical history of the applicant, the evidence before the Tribunal does not suggest she will suffer serious, ongoing or irreversible harm related to the refusal of her student visa. The Tribunal is not reviewing the decision to refuse her Subclass 485 visa. It would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to refer the applicant to the Minister for intervention related to that decision regardless of the circumstances that led to the visa refusal being a technicality, nor the alleged unlawfulness of the dismissal of the first MI application. The Tribunal is not persuaded the rights of the applicant under the ICCPR are affected by the decision under review, it is the supposition of the representative the Department unfairly or improperly made that decision using AI or automation.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant can still make a request directly to the Minister.

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Representative for the Applicant: Mrs Elizabeth C Fischer

Services for Overseas Students Act 2000

AMMANN (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1785 (12 August 2025)

Statement made on 12 August 2025 at 11:50am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION - Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa - Subclass 500 (Student) - genuine temporary entrant - visa and study history - enrolled at time of application, but not at time of department's decision or currently - invited to do honours year but didn't - medical condition - request for referral for ministerial consideration - graduate visa refused, related application for ministerial intervention dismissed and AI-based integrity checking - not referred, but applicant can request directly - decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 351, 359A

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.03, Schedule 2, cls 500.111, 500.211(a), 500.212(a)

CASE

Davis v MICMSMA [2023] HCA 10

Davis v MICMSMA

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (2)

AMMANN (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1785 (12 August 2025)