Gopalia v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1780

1. Before the Court is an application seeking judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) on 14 October 2020. By that decision, the Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate (delegate) of the first respondent (Minister) to refuse to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (student visa).
2. The Court has jurisdiction to determine this matter pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).
3. For the following reasons, the application is dismissed.

1. The background to this matter was set out in the Minister's written submissions, which I primarily adopt.
2. The applicant is a male national of India. He arrived in Australia on 8 March 2008, as the holder of a Subclass 572 Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.[1]
3. On 2 August 2018, he applied for a student visa.[2]
4. On 27 September 2018, a delegate refused to grant the applicant a student visa on the basis that he did not satisfy the requirements of cl 500.212 in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily.[3]

1. On 14 October 2018, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.[4]
2. On 24 February 2020, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a telephone hearing on 24 March 2020.[5]
3. On 19 March 2020, the applicant contacted the Tribunal to request that the hearing proceed in person and provided several documents in support of his review application.[6]
4. On 20 March 2020, the Tribunal advised the applicant that the scheduled hearing would be postponed so as to minimise the risk of transmission of COVID-19.[7]
5. On 7 July 2020, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a telephone hearing on 5 August 2020.[8] On 13 July 2020, the applicant twice contacted the Tribunal, updating his telephone contact details and stating his preference for the Tribunal to contact him on his mobile for the hearing.[9] He also provided a completed 'Response to hearing invitation' form signed on 13 July 2020.[10]
6. On 29 and 30 July 2020, the applicant provided several supporting documents to the Tribunal including a number of medical reports and test results.[11]
7. On 4 August 2020, the applicant provided further supporting documents to the Tribunal.[12]
8. On 5 August 2020, the applicant attended the scheduled hearing to give evidence and present arguments. Communication at the hearing between the applicant and the Tribunal was facilitated with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages.[13]

(a) noted that in assessing whether the applicant satisfies cl 500.212(a), it is required to consider Direction No. 69 which outlines factors relevant to determining whether an applicant is a genuine temporary entrant. These include the applicant's circumstances in their home country and in Australia, the value of the course to their future, their immigration history, and any other relevant information. The Tribunal acknowledged that such factors are not to be treated as a checklist.[14]

(b) recorded that the applicant's family remain in India and that he claimed financial and professional incentives to return. However, the Tribunal placed minimal weight on these ties, given the applicant's long-term independent residence in Australia since 2008.[15]

(c) stated that the applicant had completed multiple diploma and advanced diploma courses in business-related fields and was now enrolled in a lower-level Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery. The Tribunal found the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for this academic regression or for not pursuing this course earlier, despite it aligning with his stated career goals.[16]

(d) found that although the applicant cited a cardiac condition and associated mental health issues, there was insufficient independent evidence to show these significantly impacted his studies or work. Medical records indicated he continued to work as a truck driver, and that he maintained part-time employment and a relationship in Australia. These factors were seen as incentives to remain in Australia.[17]

(e) considered the value of the applicant's current course in light of his stated goal to open a fine dining restaurant. While the applicant claimed his studies were a pathway to a bachelor's degree, the Tribunal found he had already acquired sufficient qualifications and experience to pursue his career. The applicant's failure to progress to a bachelor's degree over 12 years further weakened the credibility of his stated intentions.[18]

(f) observed that since 2008 the applicant had held multiple student visas and another temporary visa, and had travelled to India from Australia approximately ten times. Despite these returns to India, the Tribunal considered the overall duration of the applicant's stay in Australia to be excessive and inconsistent with a temporary purpose.[19]

(g) concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily. His prolonged stay, academic progress over numerous courses, and personal circumstances in Australia indicated a desire to remain long-term.[20]

1. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements of cl 500.212(a) and affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the student visa.[21]

1. Relevantly, cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations provided:

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. By way of an originating application filed on 2 November 2020, the applicant raised the following ground of review (reproduced below without alteration):

Administrative Appeals Tribunal had not acted in the best interest of the applicant (procedural fairness issue) as mentioned in affidavit attached here with.

1. On 31 October 2020, the applicant stated the following in his sworn Affidavit (reproduced below without alteration):
   1. Administrative Appeals Tribunal had refused to grant me Student Visa (class TU )subclass 500 visa on 14/ l 0/2020. I attached such decision herewith as Annexure A.
   2. The decision I appealed into Administrative Appeals Tribunal was the decision of Department of Immigration and Border Protection refusing my (class TU) subclass 500 application. l attached its decision as Annexure B.
   3. Administrative Appeals Tribunal had not acted in the best interest of the applicant (procedural fairness issue)

First of all delegate mentioned in decision Record that, "The Tribunal does not have Jurisdiction. Then The delegate in this case refused to grant the visas on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.2 I 2(a) .

I hope that I have put forward my position in a simple, clear and honest manner and that you will see that I am not in the breach of cl 500.2 I 2(a) condition.

Prior to the hearing l have submitted the following evidence:

• Confirmation of Enrolment (COE), Completion letter and Statement of Results for an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management issued 20 December 2019;

• COE for a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery from 6 April 2020 to 3 October 2021;

• Medical letter dated 20 July 2020 from Dr Chau Tran stating the applicant has been a patient since 2016, he is being treated for cardiomyopathy and has experienced anxiety and depression;

• Medical documents in relation to the applicant's cardiac condition;

• Receipt, student card and tuition payment plan for the applicant's current course of study;

• Copy emails between the applicant and his current education provider.

• Also relevant submissions provided to the Department including the Application for a student visa form; statement of purpose; bank statements; evidence of my previous studies in Australia and India.

All above evidences can prove that I am genuine applicant and meet the primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218

I sincerely request that you give due consideration to the compelling and compassionate circumstances. Also please acknowledge that current global circumstances, that being the pandemic of Covid-19, may impact on my ability to depart Australia. May I request you to look into the grounds.

I think I am become a victim of a procedure fairness issue/matter here as Administrative Appeals Tribunal has an error in my decision. This is not fair work by any department while making a decision and department or tribunal should be fair to make it decision and must look into all necessary aspects.

1. My Chambers listed this matter for hearing on 8 July 2025. On 7 July 2025, Chambers received an email from the applicant attached to which was a medical certificate from Dr Tran dated 14 January 2025. The medical certificate provided that in June 2017, the applicant experienced chest pain and subsequently developed anxiety and depression related to his heart failure. I understood this material to be a request by the applicant to adjourn the hearing. On that basis, the Minister's position was sought and subsequently received that afternoon. The Minister opposed the adjournment request citing the date that the certificate was issued, and the absence of specifically why the applicant is unfit to attend the hearing.
2. Before an adjournment is granted, the Court must be satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice that an adjournment be granted. In BXD17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 765, Thawley J succinctly summarised the approach to be taken when considering a request for adjournment on medical grounds:

The critical question is whether the applicant was prevented from attending court or participating effectively in a court hearing. Where an applicant's case is that she is unable to attend or participate meaningfully in a hearing by reason of a medical condition, such an applicant must provide some basis for the court to conclude that the medical condition does indeed prevent her attendance or effective participation. The most obvious way to do so is to furnish medical evidence to the effect that the relevant medical condition exists and has the effect of preventing the attendance or effective participation of the applicant. The weight to be afforded such evidence depends on its particular content. A report which explains why the relevant medical practitioner holds the opinion that the medical condition prevents the applicant attending or participating is likely to be afforded more weight than a report which contains mere ipse dixit [i.e. no evidence at all]. A report which just states a conclusion, if admissible, may be of little or no weight. The report in the present case did not state that the applicant was unable to attend, and nor did it state that she was unable to participate meaningfully at a hearing. It follows that it also did not explain why the applicant would not be able to attend or participate meaningfully.

1. Following consideration of the adjournment request and the Minister's response, I decided to refuse the request for adjournment because the supporting evidence was insufficient. The medical certificate did not provide an explanation of whether, and if so how, the applicant's medical condition prevents him from attending Court or participating effectively at hearing. Accordingly, I refused the applicant's adjournment request and the parties were advised.
2. Later that same afternoon, further correspondence was received from the applicant in which he stated that he was 'happy' to attend the hearing as scheduled. My Chambers acknowledged that correspondence and confirmed the hearing would proceed as scheduled on 8 July 2025.

Clarification of the applicant's single ground raised in his application and the addition of two further grounds

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] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476; HCA 2. This matter was explained to the applicant at hearing where he was afforded an opportunity to further particularise his sole ground of review and raise any further matters which indicated that the Tribunal had erred in making its decision.
2. By way of ground one in his application and the statements in his affidavit, the applicant raises complaints about the delegate's decision, the Tribunal's consideration of his case, and that COVID-19 pandemic related issues may impact on his ability to depart Australia. I consider these matters below under the subheading 'Ground one'.
3. At hearing before me, the applicant raised two further grounds which he understood resulted in the Tribunal having denied him procedural fairness. Those two complaints essentially went to a claim that his oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing was not properly considered. In essence, the applicant took issue with the Tribunal's reasons at [15] (reproduced below without alteration):[22]

The applicant provided evidence of having undergone testing and assessment for a cardiac condition during his temporary residency in Australia. The applicant claimed this condition led him to also suffer depression and anxiety but stated he nevertheless continued to study despite his health issue. Although the Tribunal accepts the applicant attended medical appointments for assessment and treatment of a heart problem, he did not provide independent or verifiable evidence of having sought treatment for his mental health. No evidence was provided to indicate the applicant was unable to study or that his plans were impacted in a significant manner. A medical report from MQ Health dated 19 December 2017 states the applicant "currently works as a truck driver" while a later report from Dr Andrew Sindone almost two years later dated 10 September 2019 states: "He [the applicant] is still working hard driving trucks." It appears, based on his own evidence, that the applicant's health did not have a significant impact on is ability to study in Australia or undertake quite arduous work. The applicant has had regular part-time employment and confirmed he also has a partner in Australia with whom he resides. The Tribunal finds the applicant has had ample opportunity to complete his academic goals in Australia and has not faced any significant hindrance which would explain the length of time he has spent here as a student. In addition, his circumstances in Australia appear to be an incentive for him to seek to remain.

1. First, the applicant submitted he gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing that he was unable to concentrate and study properly due to his cardiac condition. On that basis, he argued the Tribunal had erred at [15] of its decision when it found that '[no] evidence was provided to indicate the applicant was unable to study or that his plans were impacted in a significant manner'. In essence, the applicant alleged that the Tribunal had failed to consider his studies had been delayed due to his health issues.
2. Secondly, he submitted that he gave oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing by which he attempted to correct errors in two medical reports he filed with the Tribunal in which it had been specified he had worked as a truck driver in Australia. He essentially argued the Tribunal had failed to consider his oral evidence that he was not a truck driver. He submitted that he told the Tribunal at hearing there were errors in the medical reports and that he had only worked as a delivery driver for an Indian grocery store which, compared with truck driving, was not 'quite arduous work'. He alleged that Tribunal's error was evident at [15] of its decision where it incorrectly stated he was a truck driver who was undertaking 'quite arduous work'. He submitted there was no possibility he would have performed truck driving work with such a medical condition. On that basis, he argued the Tribunal did not appreciate the seriousness of his heart condition, which had impacted on his studies.
3. After discussion with the parties, additional time was allowed for the filing of transcript of the Tribunal hearing along with written supplementary submissions in relation to each of these two additional grounds. A copy of that transcript was filed by the Minister on 10 July 2025, having been annexed to the affidavit sworn by Mr Matthew Patrick Humphrey that same day.
4. I regard each of these additional complaints as separate allegations of the Tribunal having failed to consider the applicant's oral evidence at hearing. I consider each of them beneath the subheading 'Additional grounds'.

1. First, I am not persuaded there has been any want of procedural fairness in this case. The core of the applicant's ground is an allegation of procedural unfairness. This ground is particularised in the applicant's affidavit. The Minister contends, and I agree, that the Tribunal fulfilled its statutory obligations regarding procedural fairness set out in Division 5 of Part 5 of the Act. The applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal and was provided with the assistance of an interpreter qualified in both the Hindi and English languages. He was given a reasonable opportunity to give evidence and present arguments at that hearing. Furthermore, the Minister submits, and I agree, that there was no information before the Tribunal that required disclosure to, and subsequent engagement with, the applicant pursuant to s 359A of the Act. There is also nothing on the evidentiary record which reveals error by way of a failure to discharge a procedural fairness obligation.
2. Secondly, in relation to the invitation in this ground to review the delegate's decision, I agree with the Minister that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review a primary decision made by a delegate: see s 476(2)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, and by way of clarification for the applicant's benefit, the evidentiary record does not support the applicant's allegation that the delegate's decision contained a statement that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to conduct a merits review in his case. Indeed, the notification sent with that decision states that merits review before the Tribunal was an option available to him should he wish. Therefore, this aspect of ground 1 is entirely misconceived and must fail.
3. Thirdly, various complaints raised by the applicant in his affidavit simply amount to an invitation to this Court to impermissibly engage in merits review. The Court is in no position to reassess the merits of the applicant's case. Additionally, the Minister submits, and I accept, there is no evidence before the Court indicating that the applicant raised any specific COVID-19 pandemic-related claims during the Tribunal proceedings which require consideration by this Court.
4. Fourthly, the Minister submits, and I agree, the Tribunal correctly interpreted and applied the requirements of cl 500.212 in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and considered the applicant's evidence and circumstances as well as the relevant factors in Direction No. 69, and came to a conclusion after weighing the factors for and against affirming the decision under review. Specifically, when evaluating the applicant's case, the Tribunal considered all the factors in Direction No. 69 that were the subject of clearly articulated claims: see Kaur v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 2026 at [31] per Steward J. The Minister submits, and I agree, that the Tribunal made logical and rational findings that were open to it on the available evidence. On that basis, jurisdictional error is not disclosed by the Tribunal's reasons in relation to ground one.

1. I agree with the Minister that, properly understood, these grounds are best characterised as the Tribunal having:

(a) failed to consider that the applicant's studies were delayed due to his health issues; and

(b) failed to consider the applicant's oral evidence that he is not a truck driver.

Failure to consider that the applicant's studies were delayed due to his health issues

1. Prior to the Tribunal hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a range of documents relating to his health. This documentary evidence including a medical letter dated 20 July 2020 from Dr Chau Tran and other medical documents in relation to the applicant's cardiac condition.[23]
2. At hearing before the Tribunal, an exchange occurred in relation to matters pertaining to the applicant's health issues and the degree to which they impacted his studies. Excerpts of that exchange follow:

Excerpt 1 - from lines [215]-[222], p 6

APPLICANT: Now it's easy for me to do the bachelors and one more reason is in 2017 in middle of 2017 I started how I have my heart issues going on which I cannot put more pressure on my brain to you know study like I have to take things slowly slowly and I have done few tests in 2018, have submitted all the documents. There were the health issues going on. I was a bit of I have a bit of anxiety and symptoms of depression so I was I couldn't handle the bachelor at that time that's why I had to wait like you know until like slowly then now like I'm progressing myself in a good way like you know with my health.

Excerpt 2 - from line [225]-[226], p 6

MEMBER: What's your health condition now like are you still able to study?

APPLICANT: Oh yeah, yeah I can still able to study now.

Excerpt 3 - from line [237]-[239], p 6

APPLICANT: but the reason why I have to take so long because I'm doing the things which step by step slowly in order for me because of my heart issues.

MEMBER: But it does look like you're continuing to study so that you can stay in Australia.

Excerpt 4 - from line [335], p 9 - line [398], p 10

MEMBER: Yeah. Was there anything else that you want to tell me about your application? Just anything that I haven't asked you already.

APPLICANT: But just a small request. My intention is to finish my bachelor degrees my studies and it's very important to finish my bachelor degree. As you can see like you know after even my visa was refused still I continued my studies keep going and you know like living with my partner too but still I'm still continuing progressing my study on the other end. I didn't neglect my studies.

MEMBER: Okay.

APPLICANT: Yeah I didn't neglect my studies like you know if I want to apply for any other visas or anything I didn't go anywhere further than my student visa. I've been living with my partner. Still I'm not I mean my intention is genuine to study.

MEMBER: Okay. And what did you want to say in particular about the medical, medical evidence that you provided?

APPLICANT: Medical evidence yeah my heart[?] started in 2017 middle of June. Slowly slowly it was getting worse so then in December in that year I went to see the specialist and [?] my medical started. Then I have to do a very, I went to the [?] College I booked an appointment there then I have to do CTC and geograph a few test related to my course. I have sent you the images and all my reports but they are, my my doctor is keep monitoring me like all the time once in a month or maybe two times in a month. I just go there whenever I feel uncomfortable I go there and do my check up. Everything is up to date and I went to see the specialist Andrew Singleman in Westmead Hospital. He's the one who was treating me from last two years and doing my like checking my progress and he's happy to, he's very happy he he said the letter in a letter like in the result that I'm progressing very good because of my medication they're getting it to me. It's working quite good on my heart so I'm getting better and better and better. And he doctor my doctor told me not to worry too much, not to think take things too serious like you know then everything will be calmed down slowly, slowly progressing. But from like from the [?] of God I'm doing very good. I have progressed very, very much better than what my condition was before in 2017. The term of my condition was in 2017 and '18 was it was like you know I can't explain what I was like you know in a very deep anxiety and depression kind of stuff like you know I don't know what to do, what to do, what to do this and nothing was coming in my way at that time that's why I have to keep myself very calm down that's what my doctor told me. Keep yourself calm, just relax, stay relaxed just don't worry about anything. Then I went to see the specialist in [?]. After a few tests he found out like my progress is very, very good compared to what I did in 2017 is that I have developed more than 50% I have like my health has gone better more than 50 to 60% compared to like what I was before. And hopefully I will, I'm doing very good now. I have no problem with my heart or nothing. So far nothing no problem but I just need my visa to finish my bachelor degree.

MEMBER: Okay. Alright. Okay. Alright well thank you then I'm going to consider all of the information you've provided at the hearing today and all of the written evidence that you've provided. I'll make a decision in your case and once I've done that you'll receive the decision and also the reasons for the decision. And the Immigration Department is told about the outcome of your case as well.

APPLICANT: Okay. One, just one request please. I need a visa to finish my bachelor degree as have given you the information like since beginning 'til now. Even with, even with my health issues I'm still continuing my studies and living with my partner also. Still I'm continuing on to continue my studies as you can see like now I have done a few courses, I've done like now with my health issues I never stopped studying like you know even when the visa was refused still I continued my studies whichever the studies I apply for the visa like you know the Diploma, Advanced Diploma of Leadership. The visa I applied and it was refused but after refusing I still continued my studies going to uni and college and continued studies. When I finish my course as I have mentioned to you like you know after finishing my course I went to the Immigration Office to check like what should I do next and they suggested me like you know it's up to you if you want to study or if you want to wait for the AAT decision but I thought like it's better to keep my studies keep going I don't want to stop it. That's why then I just then I tried to get the bachelor degree after that my bachelor degree like COE after but I couldn't get it because I don't have the valid visa. That's the only purpose I couldn't get it. If my visa was granted in 2018 I would have done my, according to the statement which I made I would have finished my course then I would have started my bachelors and applied for the new visa for the bachelors but since my visa was refused I couldn't get the bachelor COE after completion of my course the Leadership and Management and that's why I mentioned my intention clearly. I want to do my bachelor degree after this course but that's why I mentioned clearly like I want to do my bachelor degree after the course the Leadership and Management which I have applied for. If my intention is not to study not to upgrade myself I wouldn't mention like you know in the statement clearly saying like you know I want to do my bachelor degree.

MEMBER: Yeah I understand. Okay. Anything else?

APPLICANT: Please just do consider my application I will be very thankful.

1. Under cover of an affidavit sworn by the applicant on 15 July 2025, the applicant submits that he had been diagnosed with a heart condition in 2017, which worsened in 2018 and that he had experienced frequent episodes of depression and anxiety. He submitted that these health issues hindered his ability to focus on his studies and progress to a higher-level course. The applicant argues that the Tribunal did not appreciate the gravity of his health condition when reaching its findings. Furthermore, on 24 July 2025, the applicant filed a medical certificate from Dr Tran dated 22 July 2025 along with copies of prescriptions for medication issued to him in July 2025.
2. By way of supplementary written submissions filed on 24 July 2025, the Minister submits that the Tribunal had clearly considered both the documentary and oral evidence relating to the applicant's health. The Minister submits that in circumstances where the applicant explicitly stated that he was capable of studying, albeit at a slower pace due to his health issues, the Tribunal concluded that he had sufficient opportunity to completed his academic goals in Australia and that there was no evidence of any significant hindrance to explain why he had spent so long in Australia as a student. Notably, the Minister drew my attention to the Tribunal's finding at [15] that the applicant had 'ample opportunity to complete his academic goals in Australia' having arrived in Australia in 2008, some nine years before having been diagnosed with a cardiac condition. Consequently, the Minister contends that the Tribunal's reasons provided a thorough evaluation of the evidence given in relation to the applicant's health and that the Tribunal's reasons disclose an evaluation of that evidence in a manner that was logical, rational, and had a probative basis.
3. On 26 and 27 July 2025, my Chambers received correspondence from the applicant requesting an opportunity to respond to the Minister's supplementary written submissions filed on 24 July 2025. The Minister did not oppose the applicant's request. As the applicant is a litigant in person, I allowed him an opportunity to file and serve reply submissions. Those submissions were received under cover of an affidavit sworn 30 July 2025. By way of those submissions, the applicant essentially takes issue with the Tribunal's treatment of the evidence before it pertaining to his health. He also requests the Court consider the medical certificate filed on 24 July 2025 as 'relevant supporting evidence'.
4. The difficulty with the majority of the applicant's submissions is that he seeks to supplement the documentary and oral evidence that was before the Tribunal and thereby argue that the Tribunal failed to properly evaluate that evidence and acted in a legally unreasonable manner when reaching its findings. First, the material filed with this Court on 24 July 2025 was not before the Tribunal and therefore, pursuant to s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), is inadmissible. In MZXHY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 622 at [8] as per Nicholson J, it was held that it is not open for an appellant to ask the Court to admit new evidence for the purpose of inviting the Court to disagree with a factual conclusion reached by the Tribunal. Accordingly, this aspect of the applicant's argument is misconceived. Secondly, the applicant's various written submissions contain certain statements which understandably involve expressions of disappointment and frustration with the Tribunal's assessment of his health condition but amount to no more than an invitation to this Court to engage in impermissible merits review. That said, having read the applicant's submissions at their highest along with the admissible evidence before the Court, I am of the view that the Tribunal did not err in its consideration of the applicant's evidence relating to his health when reaching its findings to support its conclusion that the applicant did not meet the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
5. Having read the Tribunal's reasons as a whole, particularly at [15], the Tribunal properly acknowledged and evaluated the applicant's documentary and oral evidence for the purposes of its assessment of the applicant against cl 500.212 of Part 500 to the Regulations. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had a heart condition, a claim supported by documentary evidence and records of treatment. In contrast, the Tribunal noted the applicant's claims regarding mental health issues were not similarly substantiated, as he did not provide independent or verifiable evidence of having sought treatment for those concerns. Critically, the Tribunal stated that the evidence did not support a finding that the applicant's health issues rendered him unable to study or significantly impacted his plans. That finding was supported by the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's own oral evidence which demonstrated his ongoing commitment to his studies despite his ailment along with other evidentiary material which indicated the applicant's health condition had not impacted his ability to maintain regular part-time employment. More broadly, the Tribunal noted that the extent to which the applicant's health issues impacted upon its consideration of his ability to study and meet the genuine temporary entrant criterion needed to be understood in the broader context where the applicant had been studying in Australia since 2008 and had therefore been afforded 'ample opportunity' to achieve his academic goals before his health deteriorated in 2017.
6. While the applicant vehemently disagrees with the Tribunal's treatment of the evidence, in my view the Tribunal's consideration of that evidence discloses an approach that does not involve illogicality or irrationality. The findings reached by the Tribunal were not legally unreasonable and were open to it on the available evidence: see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; HCA 16 per Crennan and Bell JJ at [130]-[131]. Furthermore, the Tribunal's reasons disclose active intellectual engagement with the evidence relating to the applicant's health and reveal a series of findings that had a probative basis. On that basis, jurisdictional error is not disclosed by the Tribunal's reasons.

Failure to consider the applicant's evidence that he is not a truck driver

1. Prior to the Tribunal hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a range of documents including:

(a) a medical report dated 19 December 2017 from Dr Arvind Iyer in which the author states that the applicant 'currently works as a truck driver';[24]

(b) a cardiology referral form signed by Dr Iyer on 19 December 2017 in which the applicant is again described as a 'truck driver';[25] and

(c) a medical report dated 13 February 2018 from Dr Iyer in which the author states that the applicant 'works as a truck driver'.[26]

1. At hearing before the Tribunal, various exchanges occurred in relation to the applicant's work as a truck driver. Excerpts of those exchanges follow:

Excerpt 4 - lines [292]-[304], p 8

MEMBER: Any other work?

APPLICANT: Then I work as a Coles supermarket yeah as a sorting inside the Coles for maybe a month or two or a couple of months and I worked as a driver but that was also a casual one.

MEMBER: What kind of driver?

APPLICANT: Just doing the, just doing that you know the package and some medical stuff medical delivery and stuff.

MEMBER: A what sorry?

APPLICANT: A medical, medical delivery, food delivery. I used to deliver food to the restaurants too.

MEMBER: Okay. What about a truck driver? Did you, you worked as a truck driver?

APPLICANT: No no I was doing a truck driver but but... I was doing a truck driver for not for a long time maybe just because there was at that time I don't have work but I have to go off the track and do the truck job just to survive my livelihood just for the period of time for my food and like you know for my every day---

Excerpt 5 - lines [317]-[320], p 9

MEMBER: I'm just, I'm just the medicals the medical evidence that you provided it says that you work as a truck driver and you live with your partner. That's just why I'm asking you about it.

APPLICANT: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I live with my partner. I live with her but the truck driver job in my medical certificate no one at that time when the doctor said I have to leave the job straight away so I quit that job straight away. No one yeah at the time yes I'm living with the partner but, yeah.

1. At hearing before me, the applicant submitted that the medical evidence he provided to the Tribunal contained a mistake in which it was detailed that he had worked as a 'truck driver'. He added that he had worked as a 'delivery truck driver' and that he thought he had clarified this with the Member at the Tribunal hearing.
2. The applicant did not further press this argument in the submissions raised under cover of his affidavit sworn on 15 July 2025.
3. By way of supplementary written submissions filed on 24 July 2025, the Minister recited relevant aspects of the documentary evidence and extracts of the tribunal hearing transcript and noted that the applicant had in fact accepted at the Tribunal hearing that he had been a truck driver although 'not for a long time'. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal put to the applicant at hearing his own medical evidence which suggested he was a truck driver, and the applicant did not indicate to the Tribunal that this was an incorrect description of his work, rather his evidence was that he ceased the job after he was told to do so by medical professionals. The Minister submits that the Tribunal had regard to the evidence before it being two medical reports dated 19 December 2017 and 10 September 2019 that the applicant was working as a truck driver[27] and sought to clarify that evidence with the applicant. The Tribunal relied on this evidence, along with the other evidence provided by the applicant in respect of his health, to conclude at [15] that his health did not have a significant impact on his ability to study or to undertake 'quite arduous work' and engage in regular part-time employment.[28] In relation to the finding that the applicant had undertaken 'quite arduous work', the Minister submits that this statement should not be found to be limited to only refer to his truck driving, in the context of the evidence given by the applicant about his other employment and the Tribunal's reference in the following sentence to the fact that the applicant 'had regular part-time employment'. The Minister submits there was nothing untoward in the Tribunal's findings, such that it relied on the oral and written evidence before it which it was entitled to do so. The Minister otherwise submits that the weight given to evidence is a matter for the Tribunal.
4. In the applicant's reply submissions sworn on 30 July 2025, the applicant acknowledged he drove a truck but submitted that it was not a 'heavy vehicle truck requiring a separate license'. The applicant submits that he performed truck-driving work on a C-class license category and ceased that work upon receiving medical advice.
5. Having considered the applicant's exchanges with the Member at hearing on this matter and read the Tribunal's reasons as a whole, particularly those detailed at [15], the Tribunal properly grappled with the applicant's evidence in relation to his truck-driving work and, on the available evidence, reached findings that were logical and not without probative basis. The Tribunal sought clarification from the applicant about whether he had been a truck driver and considered his response to the inquiry which led it to form the view that such work had been quite arduous. The characterisation of the work as 'arduous' was open to the Tribunal on the available evidence which indicated the applicant had only ceased that work on the advice of his medical professionals. I agree with the Minister's submission that it was open to the Tribunal to conclude at [15] that the applicant's health did not have a significant impact on his ability to study or to undertake 'quite arduous work' and engage in regular part-time employment.[29] I also find that the Tribunal's statement about the arduous nature of the applicant's work was not limited to only truck driving, in the context of the evidence given by him about his other employment and the Tribunal's reference in the following sentence to the fact that the applicant 'had regular part-time employment'. On that basis, the Tribunal's consideration of the applicant's truck-driving work does not disclose illogicality or irrationality. The findings reached by the Tribunal had a probative basis. Furthermore, the evidentiary record reveals the Tribunal grappled with the applicant's evidence on matters relating to his work experience and reached findings that were open to it on the available evidence. On that basis, jurisdictional error is not disclosed by the Tribunal's reasons.

1. For the above reasons, the application before this Court is dismissed.
2. Finally, as a consequence of changes to Ministerial portfolio arrangements, the name of the first respondent is to be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship'.
3. I will hear the parties in relation to costs.

I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Papadopoulos.

[23] CB 235 at [6]; CB 162 to 210, 214.