Gill v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 427

1. This judgment is about whether a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) filed 6 February 2020 is affected by jurisdictional error. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the then Minister for Home Affairs (Delegate) to refuse the Primary Applicant's Student (Temporary) (class TU) Student (subclass 500) visas**.**
2. For the reasons that follow, this Court has determined that no jurisdictional error arises from the Tribunal's decision.

1. The Jatinder Singh Gill (Primary Applicant) is a citizen of India[1], who arrived in Australia on 11 September 2014 as the holder of a Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa granted on 2 September 2014.[2]
2. The Primary Applicant completed an English course from 15 September 2014 to 30 January 2015.[3]
3. On 26 February 2015, the Primary Applicant commenced a Master of Business Administration (MBA).[4]
4. On 16 December 2016, the Primary Applicant applied for a (Temporary) (class TU) Student (subclass 500) visa (Student Visa).[5] Jasdeep Kaur Gill (the Primary Applicant's wife) and Japtaaz Singh Gill (the Primary Applicant's son) were listed as Secondary Applicants.[6]
5. On 15 February 2017, the Applicants were granted Student Visas.[7]
6. On 10 July 2017, the Primary Applicant enrolled in a Master of Professional Accounting, the course was cancelled.[8]
7. On 27 October 2017, the Primary Applicant completed the MBA.[9]
8. On 16 July 2018, the Department emailed the Primary Applicant informing him that they needed to send the Primary Applicant important information; the Primary Applicant's contact details were requested. The Primary Applicant responded on 19 July 2018.[10]
9. On 16 July 2018, the Primary Applicant enrolled in a Graduate Diploma of Strategic Leadership.[11]
10. On 30 July 2018, the Department requested information about the Primary Applicant's study progress and status from his education provider Asia Pacific International College.[12]
11. On 14 August 2018, the education provider sent the Department a response.[13] The response included:

(a) a certificate of MBA completion dated 21 December 2017;

(b) an academic transcript;

(c) an attendance record;

(d) attendance warning emails;

(e) outstanding fees emails; and

(f) emails notifying the Primary Applicant of his failure to enrol.

1. On 22 August 2018, the Delegate sent the Primary Applicant notice of the Minister's intention to consider cancellation of the Student Visa in question (NOICC) under s 116(1)(fa)(i) of the Migration Act 1958. The NOICC was issued because it appeared to the Department that the Primary Applicant was not a genuine student.
2. The information (Provider Registration and International Student Management Systems (PRISMS) records) before the Delegate indicated that the Primary Applicant did not study between 28 October 2017 and 15 July 2018, a period of over 8 months. Further, the Delegate found that the Primary Applicant enrolled in a course of study after being contacted by the Department, indicating that the primary reason he enrolled was not to study but to avoid the potential cancellation of his Student Visa. [14]
3. The Primary Applicant was required to provide a response to the NOICC "within five working days after [they] were taken to have received" the notice. The response needed to address why the grounds for cancellation did not exist and why his visa should not be cancelled.
4. On 28 August 2018, the Primary Applicant's representative responded to the NOICC.[15] The Applicant submitted that:

(a) on 2 September 2014, he was granted a Student visa (TU 573) on the basis of undertaking an English Language Programs course followed by a MBA;

(b) on 15 September 2014, he commenced the English Language Programs course and completed the course on 30 January 2015;

(c) on 26 February 2015, he enrolled to study an MBA at Asia Pacific International College;

(d) on 16 December 2015, he applied for a Student Visa extension to complete the MBA, with the intention of completing a Master of Professional Accounting;

(e) he cancelled his enrolment in a Master of Professional Accounting with Holmes Institute, which had a start date of 10 July 2017, as he had failed a unit in the MBA;

(f) on 21 December 2017, he completed his MBA;

(g) in March/April 2018, he was unable to enrol in the Master of Professional Accounting as the intake had passed; and

(h) he therefore enrolled in a Graduate Diploma of Strategic Leadership on 19 July 2018.

1. On 30 August 2018, the Delegate cancelled the Primary Applicant's Student Visa, under s 116 of the Act.[16] The Delegate was satisfied the Primary Applicant was not a genuine student.
2. In short, the Delegate was satisfied there were sufficient grounds to cancel the Applicants' Student Visas because:[17]

(a) on 15 February 2017, the visa holder was granted the student visa on the basis that they were enrolled in a full-time registered course of study;

(b) from 28 October 2017 to 15 July 2018 he did not undertake any study;

(c) it was the responsibility of the Student Visa holder to contact the Department before taking any action to significantly change their circumstances (such as ceasing studies without obtaining alternative enrolment or not commencing further studies);

(d) the visa holder enrolled in a registered course of study after being contacted by the Department; and

(e) the visa holder enrolled in a course at the Vocational Education Sector level and not a Higher Education level course.

1. As a consequence of the Primary Applicant's visa being cancelled, the Secondary Applicant's visas were also cancelled.
2. By operation of the Act, this Court has no power to review the decision of the Delegate.[18]

1. On 5 September 2019, the Applicants applied to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate's decision.[19]
2. On that same day, the Applicants' representative provided written submissions and evidence to the Tribunal.[20] The submissions paragraphs 3 to 11 are reproduced below:

3. Mr Gill was granted a student visa on 02 September 2014, he arrived in Australia in 2014 and started his studies with an English Language course in English Language school Sydney followed by Master of Business Administration in Asia Pacific International College.

4. He commenced the English Language course on 15 September 2014 and completed on 30 January 2015. After completing the said course, he was enrolled to study a Master of Business Administration in Asia Pacific International College on 26 February 2015 and completed on 27 October 2017.

5. Mr Gill's student visa was to expire and therefore on 16 December 2016 he applied for a student visa extension while he was following the Master of Business Administration course. He was granted the student visa extension on 15 February 2017.

6. The visa extension was applied to complete the Master of Business Administration and then to follow with Master of Professional Accounting starting on 10 July 2017 to 31 December 2018.

7. Since Mr Gill had failed a subject enrolled in the first semester in 2017 he had to extend his Master of Business Administration course till 27 October 2017. Therefore, he was not able to start the Master of Professional accounting on 10 July 2017 as scheduled.

8. On 21 December 2017 he had received the degree for Master of Business Administration and had tried to get the required English language score up to 4 times to apply for Post Study visa 485. Since he was not able to achieve the relevant score and was unable to apply for post study visa.

9. Then Mr Gill enrolled in Graduate Diploma of Strategic Leadership on 19 July 2018 with Medicus College.

10. While he was enrolled and continuing his education the student visa was cancelled with causing severe financial loss and difficulties to him and the secondary visa holders (wife and the child)

11. The delegate to the Minister has failed to consider the relevant law and the facts including the following.

(i) "The visa holder arrived in Australia on the TU 573 Higher Education Sector visa on 18 February 2016."

Where as Mr Gill was granted the Higher Education TU 573 visa on 2 September 2014, arrived in Australia in September 2014 and completed the English Language program course followed by Master of Business Administration.

(ii) "The visa holder has only been actively involved with study for approximately 5 months"

Whereas Mr Gill has studied and completed English language course from 15 September 2014 to 30 January 2015 in English Language School Sydney and Master of Business Administration from 26 February 2015 to 27 October 2017. (completion letter dated 4 December 2017)

(iii) Failed to consider and evaluate all the reasons and explanation stated in the response letter submitted by Mr Gill for the notice of intention to cancel.

(iv) "On 15 February 2017 the visa holder was granted the student visa on the basis that they were enrolled in a full time registered course (s) of study."

Yes in fact Mr Gill was enrolled in and continuing studies in Master of Business administration registered course which was completed on 27 October 2017. Since his student visa was to expire on 21 December 2016 had applied for the extension on 16 December 2016 and was granted on 15 February 2017.

Moreover the applicant's father in law passed away in May 2018 which further affected the applicant and his family mentally.

1. The evidence provided to the Tribunal was as follows:[21]

(1) A visa grant letter, dated 2 September 2014.

(2) A completion letter of Master of Business administration dated 4 December 2017.

(3) An English language course certificate of completion, dated 29 January 2015.

(4) A Master of Business Administration academic record, dated 5 December 2017.

(5) A visa grant letter, dated 15 February 2017.

(6) A notification of decision letter from the Department, dated 30 August 2018.

(7) The Department's decision record, dated 30 August 2018.

(8) A CoE document from Medicus College, current at the time it was sent.

(9) A death certificate of the Primary Applicant's father-in-law.

1. On 27 November 2019, the Tribunal invited the Applicants to attend a hearing scheduled for 20 December 2019.[22]
2. On 2 December 2019, the Applicants confirmed that the Primary Applicant and his wife would attend the hearing.[23]
3. On 20 December 2019, the Primary Applicant and his wife attended the scheduled hearing accompanied by their representative and assisted by a Punjabi interpreter.[24]
4. On 9 January 2020, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision to cancel the Primary Applicant's Student Visas (with the consequence that the Secondary Applicants ceased to have a visa). The Applicants were notified of the decision on 13 January 2020.[25]

1. The Tribunal's decision is nine pages long and spans 65 paragraphs.[26]
2. At paragraphs 11 to 19 of the Minister's written submissions filed on 24 February 2026, the Tribunal's reasons were summarised. The Court as presently constituted has carefully read the Tribunal's reasons and accept the summary as comprehensive, fair and properly referenced. The Court adopts it for the purposes of this judgment (citations omitted);

11. The Tribunal noted that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the delegate's decision. The cancellation of the visas held by the second and third applicants had occurred automatically by operation of law under s 140 of the Migration Act and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction with respect to the second and third applicants.

12. The Tribunal identified that it was required to determine whether the ground for cancellation of the applicant's Student visa, being that the applicant was not a genuine student, was made out and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

13. The Tribunal noted that condition 8202(2)(a) in Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) required the applicant to be enrolled in a full-time registered course. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that he was not enrolled in a registered course from 28 October 2017 and 15 July 2018. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not complied with condition 8202(2)(a).

14. As the applicant had not complied with condition 8202(2)(a), the cancellation power in s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act, which allows the cancellation of a visa on the basis that the holder has not complied with a visa condition, was enlivened. The Tribunal was therefore not required to make a finding with respect to whether the alternative ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(fa)(i) of the Migration Act (whether the applicant was not, or likely not to be, a genuine student) existed.

15. The Tribunal noted that there were no matters specified in the Migration Act or the Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of the discretion as to whether to cancel the Student visa, but stated that it would have regard to the circumstances of the case, including matters raised by the applicant and matters in the Department's Procedural Instruction "General visa cancellation powers" (PAM3).

16. The Tribunal considered the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose. Relevantly, the Tribunal noted the applicant's submission that he was not aware that he had to remain enrolled and that he had relied on advice of his migration agent that he could not enrol until July 2018. The Tribunal considered the applicant's response to the NOICC and to his representative's letter to the Tribunal and put these to the applicant for comment. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's evidence that he thought he had maintained enrolment, given that in his response to the NOICC, he admitted to cancelling his enrolment in a Master of Professional Accounting course which was meant to commence in July 2017. The Tribunal found that the applicant was reasonably aware that he was not enrolled in any course between 28 October 2017 and 15 July 2018, and that the applicant had hoped to obtain another visa (a 485 visa). The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant's father's health concerns had led to his ceasing enrolment in 2017 in breach of condition 8202.

17. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not take reasonable steps to maintain compliance with his visa conditions and placed high weight on this information against the applicant. It also found that the applicant's circumstances were not exceptional, and were not at all beyond the applicant's control, and placed high weight on this information against the applicant.

18. The Tribunal considered the other matters set out in PAM3 as follows:

18.1. It accepted that the applicant's purpose of travelling to Australia was for study but found that the applicant had no compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia; low weight was given in the applicant's favour in relation to this factor.

18.2. It found that, with the exception of condition 8202, the applicant had been otherwise compliant with visa conditions and gave this low weight in the applicant's favour. It also found there was no evidence that the applicant had been uncooperative with the Department and gave this some weight in the applicant's favour.

18.3. It accepted the applicant may face some challenges upon returning to India, but that his Australian MBA would assist him to gain employment. It gave low weight in the applicant's favour in relation to the difficulties he submitted that he would experience in finding a job in India as the holder of an Australian MBA, and securing a job that would pay a high enough salary for him and his family to live on. It also noted that the cancellation of the applicant's visa would lead to the cancellation of his wife and son's visas. The Tribunal acknowledged concerns regarding how the son would cope in India, but noted that the Student visa was not a permanent visa, and gave these concerns low weight in the applicant's favour.

18.4. It acknowledged the legal consequences of cancellation meant that the applicant would be subject to a 3-year exclusion period from Australia upon cancellation of the Student visa, and placed low weight on this factor in the applicant's favour. It noted Australia's international obligations did not appear to be engaged.

19. The Tribunal concluded that the visa should be cancelled.

1. Based on the findings made by the Tribunal, it affirmed the Delegate's decision to cancel the Applicants Student Visas.

1. On 6 February 2020, the Applicants applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision dated 9 January 2020 (Originating Application). The Applicants seek an order of certiorari and mandamus.
2. The application is brought pursuant to section 476 of the Act, which confers upon this court, in relation to migration decisions, the "same original jurisdiction as the High Court under s 75(v) of the Constitution". That is, the Court may undertake judicial review, in respect of matters "where a writ of mandamus or prohibition, or an injunction, is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth."[27]
3. The application was brought within the 35-day time limit prescribed by section 477(1) of the Act.
4. The Applicants lists two grounds of review, with particulars, which are reproduced and considered below.

1. On 21 February 2020, the First Respondent (Minister) filed its response, seeking that the application be dismissed on the ground that the decision under review was not affected by jurisdictional error.
2. On 15 June 2020, the Minister filed a bundle of relevant documents (Court Book).
3. On 27 May 2025, a Registrar of this Court issued an Order (Registrar's Order) directing the:

(a) Applicant to file and serve any amended application, written submissions and further evidence at least 28 before the hearing; and

(b) Minister to file and serve any amended response, written submissions and further evidence at least 14 days before the hearing.

1. The Primary Applicant did not file an amended application and nor did he provide further particulars of the grounds for judicial review, despite being invited to do so.
2. On 24 February 2026, the Minister filed written submissions.
3. Therefore, the materials before the Court are as follows:

(a) the Originating Application filed 6 February 2020;

(b) a Court Book numbering 120 pages filed 15 June 2020 (marked as Exhibit R1); and

(c) Written Submissions filed by the Minister on 24 February 2026;

(a) allocated to the Court as presently constituted on 22 December 2025;

(b) listed for hearing on 8 January 2025; and

(c) heard on 12 March 2026 in person at the Court's Melbourne Registry.

1. At the hearing, the Primary Applicant appeared before the Court without legal representation. The Minister was represented by Shauna Roeger, solicitor at Australian Government Solicitor.
2. The Court confirmed with the Applicant that they had received a copy of the Court Book and the Minister's written submissions.
3. To assist the Applicant, the Court explained that this Court can only turn its attention to the issue of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. The Court explained that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. For migration decisions of this sort, however, they most commonly include (but are not limited to) the following categories:

(1) where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question;[28]

(2) where the decision-maker ignores relevant material;[29]

(3) where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material;[30]

(4) where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures;[31]

(5) where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias;[32] and

(6) where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable.[33]

1. It was also explained to the Applicant that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal's decision or grant the Applicant the visa they seek. Rather, the role of the Court is restricted to determining if the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at the decision it arrived at.[34]
2. Noting that the Applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave the Applicant an opportunity to elaborate on his grounds of review and to outline any other concerns he might have with the Tribunal's decision. This is now the standard procedure in this Court following the decision in Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection.[35]
3. Before this Court, the Applicant made submissions in support of the grounds set out in their application. Those submissions are considered below.
4. The Minister made submissions consistent with the Written Submissions filed by the Minister on 24 February 2026.
5. After the Minister made their submissions, the Court invited the Applicant to respond to what the Minister's representative had said. The Applicant made further submissions also considered below.

THE ROLE OF THE COURT IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS

1. In Bhasker v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[36] his Honour Judge Fary (as was then known) summarised the role of the Court in judicial review proceedings:
   1. Section 476 of the Migration Act provides that the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has the same original jurisdiction in relation to migration decisions as the High Court has under s 75(v) of the Constitution.
   2. Section 75(v) of the Constitution provides that the High Court has original jurisdiction in all matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. Thus, subject to the statutory exceptions provided for in s 476 of the Migration Act, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has original jurisdiction in all matters in which a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth. Further, s 474 of the Migration Act does not preclude judicial review of decisions under the Migration Act where jurisdictional error is alleged.[37]
   3. "The task of the Court [in an application for judicial review] is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality of the decision by reference to the complaints made about it." The court neither consider the merits of the decision nor remakes it.[38]
   4. The Court may grant relief if it is satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal is affected by jurisdictional error.[39] Jurisdictional error by a statutory decision maker may manifest itself in a variety of ways. Recognised categories of jurisdictional error include "misunderstanding the applicable law; asking the wrong question; exceeding the bounds of reasonableness; identifying a wrong issue; ignoring relevant material; relying on irrelevant material; in some cases, making an erroneous finding or reaching a mistaken conclusion; or failing to observe some applicable requirement of procedural fairness".[40] Different kinds of error may overlap.[41] The categories are not closed.[42] The critical question is whether the decision maker has exceeded the authority or power conferred by the statute.[43]
   5. In most but not all cases, for an error to be jurisdictional, the error must be material to the decision being challenged. The test is whether there is a "realistic possibility" that the decision that was made "could" have been different, but for the error.[44] This is to be determined as "a matter of reasonable conjecture within the parameters set by the historical facts that have been determined".[45] It has been described as an "undemanding" standard.[46]
2. The Court as presently constituted respectfully adopts his Honour's summary of the task before it.
3. Further, disagreement with a decision, even emphatic disagreement, does not of itself give rise to jurisdictional error.[47]

1. The Tribunal, based on Department of Home Affairs 'DoHA' decision, denied the Applicant appeal that he is a genuine student and complied substantially student visa conditions that AAT has affirm the decision to cancel student visa subclass 500 (AAT mentioned Subclass 573 instead, in Notification letter) hence misconstrued the requirement by the DoHA to cancel the student visa subclass 500 by considering the broad definition of s116(1) Subject to subsection (2) and (3) and cancel the visa under s116(1)(fa)(i) that state "its holder is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student;"

1.1 The Tribunal misconstrued the requirement by the DoHA decision to cancel the visa under s. 116 (1) (fa) (i) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) about the applicant intention and likely to be a genuine student

1.2 The Tribunal failed to consider the Applicant's circumstances and denied further evidence to take into consideration during hearing on 20 December 2019 hence denied procedural fairness at the time of tribunal hearing

1.3 Tribunal member did not consider and allowed further clarification about the circumstances surrounding his non-compliance raised by the cancellation officer, hence denied procedural fairness to provide further information and prove that applicant had the circumstances beyond control

1.4 Tribunal member did not consider that applicant met requirements of subclass 500 of the regulation 1994

1. Before this Court, the Minister accepted that the Tribunal's decision contained two incorrect references,[48] most likely typographical errors, by erroneously referring to the Primary Applicant's visa as a "Subclass 573" visa, instead of the "Subclass 500" visa.[49] The Minister contended, and this Court accepts, that the typographical errors did not amount to jurisdictional error, as the Tribunal understood the task before it, understood what visa was cancelled by the Delegate, and those errors had no influence on the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion in cancelling the Student Visa. The Court is content to accept that the erroneous references in the decision record had no practical consequence.[50]
2. The Primary Applicant's contention that the Tribunal misconstrued the "requirement" to cancel the Student Visa under s 116(1)(fa)(i), must be rejected. The Tribunal found that the ground for cancellation of the Primary Applicant's Student Visa was established in respect to s 116(1)(b) of the Act. [51] To reach this level of satisfaction, the Tribunal found that the Primary Applicant did not comply with a condition of the visa, namely, condition 8202(a) which required that he be enrolled in a full time registered course. That fact was undeniable. The Primary Applicant did not study between 28 October 2017 and 15 July 2018, a period of over 8 months.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal was entitled to find that the ground for cancellation arose under s 116(1)(b), it did not need to consider or establish that the ground for cancellation existed under s 116(1)(fa)(i), which considers whether an applicant is a genuine student. The Tribunal is not restricted to the issues that the Delegate considered.[52] The Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision on a different basis which was open for it to do, and not an unusual outcome of a de novo review.[53]
4. Further, the Primary Applicant accepted at the Tribunal hearing that he was not enrolled in a course of study:[54]

The Tribunal asked the applicant if it was correct that from 28 October 2017 to 15 July 2018 he was not enrolled in a registered court of study, to which the applicant responded that this information was correct.

1. The Primary Applicant contended that he was misguided by his migration agent, which caused the non-compliance.[55]
2. The Tribunal considered this evidence and put to the Primary Applicant that the onus was on him to be cognisant of his visa compliance requirements and maintain them. The Primary Applicant accepted this proposition.[56]
3. To the extent that Ground One, claims that the Tribunal did not consider the Primary Applicant's evidence, this must also be rejected. The Tribunal plainly considered the Primary Applicant's oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing and the documentary evidence provided to the Tribunal.[57] In so far as the Primary Applicant alleges he was denied procedural fairness, this must also be rejected as there was nothing in the Tribunal decision record to indicate he was not given a real and meaningful opportunity to be heard.[58]
4. At the hearing before this Court the Primary Applicant did not identify any evidence not considered by the Tribunal. He could not particularise any denial of procedural fairness. The Primary Applicant's submissions were merit based arguments like those he made before the Tribunal. To have regard to them this Court would be engaging in impermissible merits review and usurp the function of the executive.[59]
5. Ground One is dismissed.

2. The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error when took into account irrelevant considerations of applicant is non genuine student by DoHA consideration of "its holder is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student;" hence constructively failed to consider all relevant criteria requirement of student visa conditions hence misconstrued the criteria or applied wrong test regarding the review against the cancellation of the student visa subclass 500.

2.1 The Tribunal failed to consider that applicant has substantially complied and met all other relevant criteria for not to cancel visa subclass 500.

2.2 Tribunal failed to take into the consideration

2.2.1 The nature of the consideration of the cancellation criteria;

2.2.2 Significance of the requirement met;

2.2.3 Role of the Department;

2.2.4 At the time of the cancellation if the applicant met all other relevant applicable criteria;

1. Before this Court, the Primary Applicant was provided with an opportunity to explain what he meant by this ground. The Primary Applicant's response failed to articulate what irrelevant considerations the Tribunal allegedly had regard to.[60] These allegations against the Tribunal are baseless.
2. Further, as considered by this Court in Ground One, the Tribunal did not consider whether the Primary Applicant was a genuine student but rather found there was a separate basis for cancellation, namely, his non-compliance with the requirement to be enrolled in a full-time registered course.
3. The Tribunal did not fail to consider any of the matters alleged by the Primary Applicant. The Tribunal accepted that the Primary Applicant complied with his visa conditions apart from condition 8202 and gave this a low weight in the Primary Applicant's favour.[61] The Tribunal also went on to consider the consequences of cancellation, including hardship which the Applicants may endure. These matters were also given a low weight in the Applicants favour.[62]
4. However, after considering all relevant matters, the Tribunal ultimately used its discretion to cancel the visas, which it was entitled to do. No error arises from the use of this discretion.
5. Ground Two is dismissed.

1. Mindful of the Court's obligations towards unrepresented litigants as outlined in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[63] at [59]-[77], [100] and [112]-[113], the Court has scrutinised the application, the materials before the Tribunal and the Tribunal's decision to identify any jurisdictional error. The Court has also read the Applicants grounds as broadly as possible and remain alive to the possibility of jurisdictional error on the Tribunal's part. Nevertheless, the Court is of the view that error has not been disclosed on the Tribunal's part.
2. For the reasons set out above, this Court is satisfied that the Tribunal's reasons were not affected by jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed. An order to that affect will be issued concurrently.
3. At the hearing, Ms Roeger stated that, in the event that this matter was dismissed, the Minister would seek a costs order directed to the First and Second applicants of $5,400.00.
4. In deciding the question of costs, the Court is required to consider:

(a) whether it is appropriate that the Applicants should pay any costs at all, noting that the usual rule in courts in Australia is that an unsuccessful party pays the party/party costs of the successful party; and

(b) if the Court is so satisfied that the applicants should pay costs, what the reasonable quantum is.

1. These principles were explained to the Primary Applicant, who was then invited to comment on the figure sought by the Minister. The Primary Applicant submitted that they did not have money to pay the costs, due to a lack of income.[64]
2. The Court is satisfied that costs ought to follow the event, and that it is appropriate to make an order in the amount sought by the Minister having regard to the scale and the extent of work undertaken as evidenced by the court file.

I certify that the preceding seventy-three (73) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Johns.

[18] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 338, 474, 476(2)(a), 476(4)(a).

[27] EDO19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FedCFamC2G 826, [64].

[28] Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 198.

[29] Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 198.

[30] Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 198.

[31] SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) HCA 24; (2005) 228 CLR 294, [207]-[208].

[32] SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80, [2].

[33] Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611, [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332, [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437, [44].

[34] Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, 272.

[35] [2019] FCA 600, [7].

[36] [2025] FedCFamC2G 620.

[37] Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

[38] Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21, [17] (Allson CJ, Besanko and O'Callaghan JJ).

[39] Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.

[40] LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 418 ALR 152, [3] ('LPDT').

[41] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 2006 CLR 323, [82].

[43] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 at 351, [82].

[45] MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; (2021) 273 CLR 506, [38] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ).

[46] Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26; (2022) 276 CLR 80, [33] (Kiefel CJ, Keane and Gleeson JJ).

[47] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21, [40].

[49] 12 March Transcript, 12 lines 6-8.

[50] ASA19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2062, [9]-[11].

[52] SZBEL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2006) 81 ALJR 515, 521 [34] -

[55] 12 March Transcript, 5 lines 1-3, 6 lines 26-32.

[58] Migration Act, s 360(1), SZBEL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2006) 81 ALJR 515 at 521 [44].

[59] Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1.

[60] 12 March Transcript, 11 lines 28-32.

[62] CB 116-118 [43]-[47], [49],[54].

[63] [2015] FCA 1391.