Elgohary v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1764

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographic, clerical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (Rules), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 of the Rules.

1. By an application filed with the Court on 22 February 2021, the applicant seeks review of a decision of the Tribunal to not grant him a Student (Temporary) (Subclass 500) visa (visa).

1. The following background to this matter is derived from the submissions of the first respondent and, unless otherwise indicated, does not appear to be in dispute.
2. The applicant is a male citizen of Egypt who first arrived in Australia on 13 December 2004 as the holder of a student visa (Court Book (CB) 78). Since his (initial) arrival[1], the applicant has spent nearly 21 years in Australia, primarily holding student visas between his arrival and his application for the visa the subject of these proceedings (CB 78 and 101).
3. On 21 December 2018, he applied for the visa to study an Advanced Diploma of Travel and Tourism Management and a Bachelor of Accounting which were due to be completed by 23 April 2021 (CB 1 to 68).
4. On 20 February 2019, a delegate of the Minister (delegate) refused to grant the applicant the visa (CB 75 to 79). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intended genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily and therefore found that he did not meet the requirements of cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations).
5. On 21 February 2019, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision (CB 80 to 81).
6. On 17 April 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s 359(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) requesting that he provide further information by 1 May 2020 (Tribunal invitation). Specially, the Tribunal invitation explained that it was a requirement for the grant of the visa that he demonstrate that he was (CB 87):

(a) enrolled in a registered course of study; and

(b) was a genuine applicant for entry and temporary stay as a student.

1. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide information showing he met the requirements referred to at [7(a)] and [7(b)] above. In relation to the question of whether the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and temporary stay, the Tribunal provided him with a copy of Ministerial Direction No. 69 (Direction 69) (CB 87 to 93 and at [38] below).
2. On 1 May 2020, the applicant responded to the aforementioned invitation by providing a completed Request for Student Visa Information form and supporting documents including a Confirmation of Enrolment to study a Diploma of Project Management due to commence on 6 April 2020 and be completed on 4 April 2021 (CB 94 to 112). Among other things, the applicant said his plan was to return to Egypt upon completion of his course (CB 107).
3. On 28 September 2020, the applicant was invited to a hearing on 13 October 2020, which he attended to give evidence and present arguments with the assistance of an interpreter in the Arabic language (CB 114 to 116 and 123 to 125).
4. On 25 January 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa (CB 128 to 134).

1. The Tribunal identified that the issue before it was whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, as required by cl 500.212 (CB 129 to 130 at [6] to [8]). The Tribunal found that, in considering that question, it was required to have regard to Direction 69, and that the factors referred to therein should guide the decision-maker in considering the applicant's circumstances holistically to determine whether the applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion (CB 130 at [8] to [9]).
2. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant's evidence that his proposed course of study (being the Diploma of Project Management) was taught in Egypt but that in Australia both practical and theoretical teaching was used to teach it (CB 131 at [12] to [13]). Having regard to the applicant's evidence that he had found employment in the United Arab Emirates following his completion of a Bachelor of Accounting in Egypt, the Tribunal considered that any difference which existed between the teaching methods of Australian and Egyptian education providers had not previously prevented him from gaining employment in Egypt. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had sound reasons for not undertaking the proposed course or similar in Egypt (CB 131 at [13] to [14]).
3. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant's family resided in Egypt, that he had returned there annually, and that the applicant had familial ties to his home country. However, because the applicant had been residing in Australia for more than 16 years, the Tribunal observed the applicant had been able to maintain relations with his family members while residing in Australia, and that having family members in Egypt thereafter did not appear to have been a strong incentive for him to return there permanently (CB 131 at [15]).
4. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant's evidence that he had inherited property and land in Egypt but found that owning this land had not induced the applicant to return to his country over the last 16 years. Accordingly, it also found that owning the land did not appear to require the applicant to be in Egypt (CB 131 at [16]).
5. The Tribunal further found there to be no evidence presented by the applicant about how he would fund the startup of a travel agency business, and had difficulty accepting that he would be able to secure that funding due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the applicant's employment appeared to adequately cover his living expenses. Taking those matters into consideration, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the applicant's economic circumstances would be a strong incentive for him to return to his home country upon completion of the course (CB 132 at [16]).
6. The Tribunal turned to consider the value of the proposed course of study to the applicant's future and his plans in the questionnaire to return to Egypt to start his own accountancy firm (CB 132 at [18]). The Tribunal did not accept that a reference to starting an accountancy firm was an error by his migration agent, noting he had never been represented by an agent. It did not accept any mistake as to the applicant's future plans were made in response about these plans in his completed questionnaire (CB 132 at [19]).
7. Noting that the applicant had expressed an intention in his visa application to work in the field of accounting, the Tribunal observed that the applicant appeared to have had a sudden and unexplained change of plans from his newly expressed intention to open a travel agency (CB 133 at [20] to [22]). It found that he had not adequately explained how the proposed course would help him with his plans to start a travel agency, and expressed the view that a marketing course may have been more relevant to his explanation. For this reason, the Tribunal did not accept that the proposed course had any relevance to either commencing or running a travel agency nor any relevance to his previous employment as an accountant. It followed that the Tribunal did not accept that the qualification would have any effect on the remuneration the applicant might expect to earn in Egypt (CB 133 at [22]).
8. The Tribunal found the length of time the applicant had been in Australia was of particular concern and that there was little sign of him returning to Egypt to re-join his family (CB 133 at [23]). The Tribunal found there must be something, other than study, that had kept the applicant in Australia for such a lengthy period of time. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not completed a course of study since December 2016, and that there was a plethora of other courses over the years which he either did not complete or never started. The Tribunal found that the applicant had very little to show academically despite having spent 16 years living in Australia (CB 133 at [24]).
9. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the applicant was likely using the student visas to maintain ongoing residence in Australia and, by doing so, he was attempting to circumvent the intentions of the migration program (CB 132 at [25]).
10. Finally, having regard to the applicant having resided in Australia for more than 16 years, the Tribunal considered this to be a long period of time to have resided on temporary visas in order to engage with study. It found that he had a history of failing to complete or even commence the various courses he had been enrolled in, and that the lack of academic progress raised concern about his compliance with the conditions of his visas. The Tribunal reiterated that those circumstances led it to think he was using student visas to maintain residence in Australia (CB 134 at [27]).
11. The Tribunal was ultimately not satisfied that the applicant intended to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily and therefore found he did not meet cl 500.212(a) or cl 500.212 (CB 134 at [28] to [29]). Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review (CB 134 at [31]).

1. On 22 February 2021, the applicant applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in this Court by the filing of an application to show cause and an Affidavit in support. The proceedings were placed in the central migration docket upon their commencement. On 25 March 2021, a Registrar made orders which included leave to the applicant to file any amended application by 17 June 2021.
2. On 15 June 2021, the applicant filed an Amended Application, followed on 1 July 2021 by an Affidavit made Toufic Laba Sarkis (Transcript Affidavit).
3. On 27 February 2025, a Registrar called the proceedings over by telephone. The applicant appeared on that occasion with the assistance of an interpreter, and the first respondent was represented by a solicitor. Further Orders were made on that occasion for the preparation of the proceedings for hearing, including another opportunity to the applicant to amend his originating application. On 25 June 2025, the proceedings were docketed to me and I listed them for hearing at 10:15am on 1 October 2025 and made further orders for the preparation for that hearing. The applicant was granted leave to file a further amended application. The applicant and the first respondent were ordered to file written submissions, 14 and 7 days (respectively) before the hearing. The first respondent complied with that order, while the applicant did not.
4. The parties appeared before me this morning. The applicant is unrepresented but has been assisted throughout by an interpreter in the Arabic language. The applicant speaks some considerable English however, at my insistence, the hearing has proceeded through the interpreter to ensure consistency. The interpreter and the applicant confirmed that they were able to understand each other.
5. At the commencement of the hearing, I explained to the applicant the Court's jurisdiction in judicial review and the limitations on what it can decide. The applicant indicated that he understood. The Court Book was tendered for the first respondent and marked as Exhibit "1R". Additionally, I granted leave to the applicant leave to rely upon the Transcript Affidavit, which was subsequently read.

1. By the Amended Application the applicant raises the following grounds (errors in original):
   1. The Tribunal decision is affected by error of law as the Tribunal misunderstood my genuine intention to remain temporarily in Australia and that I have strong incentive to return to Egypt.
   2. Even though I have been residing in Australia for 16 years, I have at all times honoured my visa conditions and I repeat that my intention to study is genuine and my intention to join my family in Egypt is also genuine.
   3. I have my partner whose name appears in the Court Book at p.6 in Egypt as well as my son Mohamed whose name appears in Court Book p.7 as well as my daughter Mariam whose name appears in Court Book p.9 as well as my daughter Mira who appears in Court Book p.10. My parents and my sibling which should be evidence that I have strong ties to Egypt.
   4. The Court Book has evidence about my educational achievements.
   5. The decision of the Tribunal appearing in Court Book ps. 128-134 the Tribunal in point 15 p.132 erred by saying that having family members in Egypt does not appear to be a strong incentive for the applicant to return there. Such a statement is based on the assumption and contrary to the probative evidence submitted. I mentioned that my plans were to open my own travel agency in Egypt and even though COVID-19 is restricting international movements, the Tribunal should accept that having Australian qualifications my economic circumstances would not stop me from returning to my country after completing the course. The course in Project Management would assist me to start a business in Egypt as self employed whether in accounting or travel agency and I realise that the Member failed to accept my future plan yet failed to accept that it is time for me to return and spend valuable time with my children especially after the death of my father. I repeat event the Tribunal believes that I have ties in Australia I confirm that my ties are strongly with my family in Egypt and not in Australia even though I have spent years here.
   6. It is my open argument that I am not using the student visa to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.
   7. I do not agree that the lack of academic progress should raise concern about my compliance with condition 8202 of my student visa.
   8. I can see that there is some unreasonable findings by the Tribunal if we take into consideration the continuation of my studies and maintaining my active student visa.
   9. I wish also to reserve my right to submit transcript for the interview with the Tribunal.
2. The grounds were interpreted to the applicant, and he was given the opportunity to address each of them in turn. Before addressing the grounds individually, some observations can be made which apply to all of them.
3. It will be observed that each of the grounds, in essence, make factual statements which indicate the applicant's disagreement with the Tribunal's findings. It is well established that merits review is not part of this Court's jurisdiction in judicial review, and I explained this to the applicant on several occasions during the course of the hearing: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 (Wu Shan Liang) at 272.
4. During the hearing it became apparent from a number of submissions that the applicant made, that he took the view that the judicial review application was an opportunity to respond to, or refute, factual findings made by the Tribunal. This simply describes a different species of merits review, and is still not a permissible exercise in which this Court can engage. Provided that the findings were open to the Tribunal on the material before it, the ability of the applicant to refute them (particularly by further evidence which was not before the Tribunal) would not, in and of itself, demonstrate an error on the part of the Tribunal.
5. Further, in respect of all the grounds, on several occasions the applicant made reference to the fact he had previously been granted previous student visas. This was a fact to which he pointed with a degree of incredulity in saying that he now does not understand why the visa the subject of this judicial review application, was not granted to him. From a lay perspective, perhaps there is some logic to that. However, similarly, where the issue that presents itself on the material before the Tribunal is whether a student visa applicant genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia, the serial granting of previous student visas may become relevant. In any event, to the extent that the applicant says he does not understand why the Tribunal did not grant him this visa, its reasons for doing so are set out in the decision (CB 130 to 134 at [11] to [27]).
6. The last matter to address in respect of the grounds generally, is an assertion made by the applicant on several occasions that he was not aware what documentational evidence he was required to produce to the Tribunal. He expresses a degree of surprise at hearing that the Tribunal made findings on several topics by reference to a lack of information provided by the applicant in circumstances where he says he was not aware of what should be provided, and where he otherwise says he was not asked questions on certain topics at hearing.
7. Section 360 of the Act (as it applied at the time of the Tribunal's decision) required:

(a) in s 360(1) that the Tribunal must invite the applicant to appear before it; unless

(b) it considered that the review, should be decided in the applicant's favour on the basis of the material before it.

1. As such, the issuance of the invitation to attend a hearing (CB 114 to 116) was only extended to the applicant once the Tribunal had decided that, based on the material the applicant had already submitted, the visa could not be granted. A layperson would not necessarily be expected to understand the significance of the invitation, and it is previously for that reason the second sentence in that letter states:

We have considered the material before us but we are unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone.

1. The next paragraph in the invitation expressly picked up the language of s 360 of the Act and informed the applicant that he was invited to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case. Relevantly, the applicant was asked to provide, at least seven days before the hearing, all documents upon which he intended to rely to establish that he met the visa criteria (CB 115).
2. The applicant was expressly directed to the decision of the delegate which set out the reasons why the delegate found he did not meet the visa criteria, and it was suggested that he should have regard to those. At [1] and [2] shortly thereafter in the invitation, the applicant was asked for specific documents. The applicant was also informed that the Tribunal may assess whether he was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student and (to pick up the earlier point made in the invitation) expressly told that this had been the reason for the delegate's decision.
3. The applicant was then directed to a copy of Direction 69, a copy of which was provided to him with the invitation. While not reproduced in the Court Book, is set out in a list of attachments at the end of the letter at CB 116. I am satisfied that the applicant was on sufficient notice of the matters which would be addressed by the Tribunal relevant to its assessment of the visa criteria in the applicant's case.
4. There was otherwise no duty on the Tribunal to inquire that arises in this case as that principle is understood through decisions: see SZIAI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] HCATrans 165; (2009) 259 ALR 429. Given that the applicant was put on notice of the issues in the review by the Tribunal it was a matter for him to thereafter provide and produce any documents or other evidence which he considered might prove that he was a genuine temporary entrant for stay and study.

1. In respect of grounds 1 and 2, the applicant made reference to the Tribunal's lack of satisfaction that his family ties (which ties the Tribunal accepted existed) were not accepted as being proof of his intention to stay temporarily.
2. I accept the first respondent's submissions that grounds 1 and 2 merely reflect disagreement with the Tribunal's findings and seek to engage the Court in impermissible merits review: see Wu Shang Liang (supra). Contrary to the applicant's assertions, the Tribunal plainly understood it was the applicant's assertion that he genuinely intended to remain in Australia temporarily, including because he had ties to Egypt through his family (CB 131 to 132 at [15]). However, just because the Tribunal did not accept those claims does not mean it erred. Rather, the Tribunal's reasons for finding that the applicant did not intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, and that there was little sign of him returning to Egypt to re-join his family were open to it. It was a matter for the Tribunal to identify such material as it finds relevant to its reasoning and to give it appropriate weight: see Tran v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 297 at [5] to [7] per Kiefel, RD Nicholson and Downes JJ and Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630 at [46] per French, Sackville and Hely JJ.
3. I also accept the first respondent's submission that in terms of his family ties and intention to join them in Egypt, the Tribunal simply found those ties had not provided a strong incentive for him to return given that he had resided in Australia for over 16 years, and had been able to maintain his relationship with his family despite this (CB 131 to 132 at [15]). As to his assertion that he had complied with all his visa conditions, the Tribunal (like the delegate) noted the applicant's study history, and lack of progress raised concern about his compliance with condition 8202 attached to his previous student visas (CB 79 and CB 134 at [27]).
4. The Tribunal considered all the evidence before it but found that it could not be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to remain temporarily in Australia, due to:

(a) the applicant's circumstances in Egypt and Australia;

(b) the value of his proposed course of study;

(c) change in courses;

(d) lack of course progression; and

(e) residence in Australia for over 16 years.

1. In respect of ground 2, the applicant additionally claimed at the hearing that he felt that the Tribunal had made "a judgment against him" for the fact that he had stayed in Australia for 16 years. He again reiterated that he has family ties in Egypt. I am satisfied the Tribunal's conclusions were open to it on the material before it. I am not satisfied that the errors alleged by grounds 1 or 2 are established.

1. By ground 3, the applicant makes statements asserting the existence of a partner, daughters, his parents and his siblings. He says this was evidence that he had strong ties to Egypt. The applicant told the Court he did not know "what was happening with all the points that the Tribunal put", and why the visa had been refused. The applicant said that the findings of the Tribunal remain its point of view, and that the applicant "was not breaking anything".
2. In respect of the merits review points and the applicant's statement that he does not understand the basis for the refusal, I refer to my earlier findings at [41] and [44]. To the extent that the applicant may be taken to be suggesting that the findings of the Tribunal were an opinion only, I am satisfied that its factual findings were open to it on the material before it. I am satisfied that none of those findings lack an evident or intelligible justification.
3. I accept the first respondent submissions that ground 3 similarly contends that the applicant's family, including his partner, children, parents and siblings reside in Egypt, which is evidence of his strong ties to Egypt. However, at its highest this ground disputes, rather than identifies error in, the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal did consider the applicant's ties to Egypt and evidence that he contacted his family daily and had returned regularly on an annual basis for visits varying in length (CB 131 at [15]). However, it found he was able to maintain his relationships with members of his family whilst residing in Australia for over 16 years and, as such, his family did not appear to be a strong incentive for him to return home. These findings were open to the Tribunal for the reasons it gave and do not reveal any error.

1. By ground 4, the applicant makes a statement about the Court Book containing evidence of his educational achievements. The first respondent says that this ground is not accompanied by any particulars which are meaningful, nor does it identify or articulate any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's reasons. At hearing today, the applicant took the Court to CB 102 to 103, being a section of the application for review made to the Tribunal in which he was asked to give all details of courses in which he had been enrolled since being in Australia, including any cancelled enrolments, courses successfully completed, or current or future enrolments. A review of those two pages indicates enrolment in a significant number of courses which the applicant never commenced, as well as enrolment in courses which were seen to completion. To the extent that the applicant relies upon these pages as evidence of his academic achievements, I accept the first respondent's submission that put forward that ground 4 is a bare assertion that the Court Book contains evidence of his educational achievements. The assertion is not accompanied by particulars, nor does it articulate any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's reasons in which it considered the numerous courses in which he had enrolled since his arrival in 2004 (CB 130 to 131 at [11]). Ultimately, noting the number of courses the applicant did not start or complete, and that he had completed very few courses over the 16 years he had been in Australia, it was open to the Tribunal to find he had 'very little to show academically' for someone who had spent 16 years living in Australia (CB 133 at [24]). If the applicant's intention is to dispute that finding, there would be no basis to the assertion given that it was clearly open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it.

1. Ground 5 is expressed in a narrative form. Given the matters which the applicant had already addressed in relation to grounds 1 to 4, I had the entirety of ground 5 interpreted to him and asked him if this encapsulated similar submissions to those made before, or whether there would be anything he wished to say in addition. Once the interpreting was complete, the applicant said that: "These are the same point and I even believe in the - in their decisions, they talked about their point and also they have repeated that same points. Nothing to add." (Transcript T10.39 to 42). Ground 5 is otherwise an impermissible attempt at merits review.
2. To the extent that ground 5 also makes assertions about the applicant's plan to start a business, I agree with the submission of the first respondent that this is an assertion that the Tribunal should have accepted the applicant's plan to start a business in accountancy or travel agency. The Tribunal was not required to accept the applicant's claims, nor was the relevant question whether there was anything that would "stop [him] returning to [his] country after completing the course": see Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 1253; (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 (Randhawa); Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596 (Guo). Rather, the relevant question, as the Tribunal explained, was whether the applicant intended genuinely to remain in Australia temporarily.
3. I agree with the first respondent's submission that, in any event, the Tribunal did consider the applicant's evidence that his plan was to open his own travel agency upon competition of the proposed course. However, it found that there was no evidence that had been presented as to how he was going to fund the start-up of such a business (particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic) demonstrate that his economic circumstances would be strong incentive for him to return to his home country (CB 132 at [16]). The Tribunal further found that the applicant had not provided any detail about the proposed travel agency, such as the nature of its clientele, the types of travel and tourism upon which the business would focus nor how the proposed course of study would assist him to start the travel agency (CB 133 at [22]). These matters were relevant to the Tribunal's consideration as to the value of the proposed course to the applicant's future and, for the reasons given, were open to it. The Tribunal did not "fail" to accept the applicant's future plans. The alleged error in this ground again invites the Court to engage in impermissible merits review and must be dismissed.

1. It is convenient to consider ground 6 and 7 together because, as the applicant said at the hearing, these are his rebuttal to the Tribunal's decision. I refer in that circumstance to my earlier findings (at 31 above) about judicial review not being a jurisdiction in which the applicant can simply refute factually the findings of the Tribunal.
2. I agree with the first respondent's submissions that seeks the applicant merely to disagree with the Tribunal's findings that the applicant was using the student visa program to maintain ongoing residence in Australia. The Tribunal was not required to uncritically accept the applicant's claims: see Randhawa at 451 (supra) and Guo at 596 (supra). The Tribunal's findings are cogent and comprehensive and were open to it on the evidence before it and for the reasons it gave. The fact that the applicant does not agree with the Tribunal's findings does not reveal error, but seeks to engage this Court in an impermissible merits review.
3. The first respondent further says that the applicant's statement that his lack of academic progress should not raise a concern with condition 8202, is merely his opinion and there was no error in the Tribunal's observations (CB 134 at [27]). I agree condition 8202 requires applicants who hold student visas in essence to:

(a) be enrolled in a registered course;

(b) maintain enrolment in a registered course that provided a qualification at the same, or higher, level than the registered course for which the visa was granted; and

(c) to maintain satisfactory attendance and progress in their course.

1. Given the evidence before the Tribunal (CB 102 to 103 and CB 130 to 131 at [11]), it was not surprising that it, like the delegate, expressed concern that the applicant had not complied with condition 8202 because he had not always been enrolled in a registered course, and because he had not always studied at the level for which his visa(s) were granted (CB 79).
2. Grounds 6 and 7 are not made out.

1. Ground 8 alleges unreasonableness, and I explained to the applicant that there is a high bar to meet by which to make such an allegation. When asked what (beyond disagreeing with the Tribunal's findings) the applicant wished to say about which findings were legally unreasonable, the applicant again said that he did not know the Tribunal had reached its decision, that he had been granted student visas previously. The applicant repeated that he did not know why he had been refused, and felt that he had not been given the opportunity to provide evidence in this regard. I refer to the earlier findings at [32] above.

1. By ground 9 of the Amended Application, the applicant says wishes to rely on a Transcript Affidavit which was subsequently filed on 1 July 2021. As noted above, that leave was granted at the hearing. By his written submissions, the first respondent said that in the absence of the applicant having provided any further Amended Application or submissions to explain its relevance of the Transcript Affidavit, the first respondent and the Court were therefore left to guess its relevance.
2. At the hearing the applicant alleged, as the first respondent had anticipated, that the purpose of the transcript is to that the Tribunal hearing was brief. So much can be accepted also from the hearing record which is contained at CB 123 to 125.
3. While the hearing was somewhat brief (20 minutes), brevity of reasons is not, itself, is not an error: see Pandey v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1292 at [98] citing Pabbi & Anor v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 1750 at [54]. Further, the Transcript Affidavit reveals that the applicant was on notice of the role of the Tribunal, the relevant issues it was required to resolve and also, that the Tribunal had before it the Department file, the documents submitted to it by the applicant, that the was afforded the opportunity to provide any further evidence which may be important to his application, and that he was assisted by an interpreter that he understood. I agree that nothing in the transcript reveals any clear error.
4. I am not satisfied that there is any jurisdictional error as alleged by ground 9 of the Amended Application, or at all.
5. In the absence of jurisdictional error, the decision of the Tribunal is a privative clause decision and must be dismissed. I will so order.

1. Consequent upon my dismissal of the application, the solicitor for the first respondent seeks an order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $6,500. When asked whether or not there was anything the applicant wished to say about whether costs should follow the event, and if so, in what amount, the applicant said he had nothing further to say.
2. I am satisfied that costs should follow the event in this proceeding, r 25.14 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)(General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (Rules) provides that when the Court determines that a party is entitled to costs, they may seek costs up to and including the amount specified in Schedule 2 of Part 3 of the Rules ($9,097.93). The amount sought by the first respondent is objectively less than that amount, and to the extent that the first respondent seeks it on the basis that it represents a fair indemnity of his costs, I am satisfied that that order should be made.

I certify that the preceding sixty-four (64) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Given.

[1] The applicant has left and returned to Australia on multiple occasions in that time.