Marasi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1779

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("AAT"). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister, refusing the applicant a student visa. The delegate refused the visa on the grounds that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant. By the time the matter came before the Tribunal, the applicant did not have a certificate of enrolment, which was a mandatory requirement of the grant of the visa. That is under clause 500.211(a) of the Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 ("the Regulations").
2. The applicant conceded to the Tribunal that he did not have a certificate of enrolment at the time of the hearing before the Tribunal. He was represented by an agent who asked for more time for the applicant to get a certificate of enrolment. The Tribunal refused to grant more time on the basis that he had been represented in the application by a migration agent for about six months, and therefore should have received advice regarding the requirements for the grant of the visa.
3. Also, the Tribunal had asked for a certificate of enrolment in the invitation to the hearing, and the applicant did not provide that. The Tribunal considered that it would not be appropriate to grant an adjournment and refused the adjournment. In the circumstances, the Tribunal then made the only decision that was open to it, which was to affirm the delegate's refusal of the student visa.
4. The application before this court lists three grounds.
5. The first ground in the application is as follows:

The AAT-MRD erred in applying the legal test for the grant of a student (temporary) (class TU) visa.

1. The applicant was not able to elucidate what the alleged error was. It seems to me that the Tribunal did not err in applying the legal test for the grant of a student visa. A mandatory requirement was that the applicant had a certificate of enrolment. He admitted to the Tribunal that he did not have a certificate of enrolment. Indeed, he told the court today that he did not have one because he could not afford another course at that time. Ground 1 is without merit.
2. The second ground in the application is as follows:

The AAT-MRD failed to engage with the evidence and claims advanced.

1. The Tribunal's reasons for decision show that it did engage with the evidence and claims that the applicant put forward, including what he said about COVID impacting his study and that he had been an exemplary student. However, the Tribunal considered that, in the absence of a certificate of enrolment, this evidence and claims could not make any difference. Ground 2 is without merit.
2. The third ground in the application is as follows:

The AAT-MRD failed to properly apply the relevant law and consider the evidence and claims advanced.

1. This is basically a repetition of the previous grounds. The Tribunal did apply the relevant law, in particular clause 500.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and it did consider the evidence and claims advanced by the applicant.
2. The applicant said in his affidavit in support of his application that the AAT-MRD did not accord him procedural fairness. The AAT did accord the applicant procedural fairness. The Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing. It clearly advised the applicant of the issue before it, which was the lack of a certificate of enrolment. The Tribunal complied with s.359A of the Migration Act 1958, and the Tribunal made its decision based on the applicant's own admissions, not on extraneous evidence that the Tribunal took into account. I do not accept that there was a denial of procedural fairness.
3. The applicant also said in his affidavit that the AAT MRD was unreasonable and cited Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; (2013) 139 ALD 181; (2013) 297 ALR 225; (2013) 87 ALJR 618; [2013] HCA 18. This seems to be directed to the Tribunal's refusal of an adjournment. The Tribunal gave detailed reasons for refusing the adjournment. They are set out in paragraph 27 of the Tribunal's reasons for decision.
4. The Tribunal noted that the applicant initially gave a vague response in relation to the Tribunal's question about his future plans. He said that he would await the Tribunal's decision, and he gave evidence that he was in a relationship with an Australian citizen and intended to lodge a partner visa.
5. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's PRISMS record that showed that the applicant had not been enrolled in a course since 29 July 2019. That was about three years before the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant had completed all of the courses in which he had been enrolled, but said that he had not been enrolled in any course for almost three years.
6. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant told the Tribunal that he could get another enrolment if the Tribunal wished him to do so. The Tribunal considered that this response suggested that the applicant did not have a genuine interest in studying in Australia, but, rather, that he sought the adjournment primarily to satisfy the enrolment criterion for the purpose of obtaining a successful visa outcome.
7. The Tribunal also noted that it wrote to the applicant on 27 June 2022 to invite him to the hearing which took place on 15 July 2022. That was about three or four weeks earlier. The applicant was advised that he needed to provide seven days before the hearing any documents that showed that he was currently enrolled in a course or had an offer of enrolment in a course. However, notwithstanding that notification the applicant did not provide any enrolment related documents.
8. The invitation to the hearing also drew the applicant's attention to the Tribunal's COVID-19 special measures practice direction, which specifically stated that if an applicant has applied in relation to a student visa they must, prior to the hearing, lodge evidence of enrolment in their course or a statement setting out a detailed explanation of their attempts to obtain enrolment.
9. The Tribunal noted the applicant did not provide the certificate of enrolment or letter of offer or convincing evidence of any attempt to obtain them.
10. The Tribunal noted that the applicant claimed that he had several offers of enrolment but had provided no evidence of them. The Tribunal pressed the applicant on this issue. He then conceded that he did not have any offers of enrolment in writing.
11. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's reasons for not obtaining enrolment after his last course of study in July 2019 were vague and general. The Tribunal considered that, if the applicant had had a genuine interest in further study, he had had plenty of time to obtain a certificate of enrolment.
12. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims about ongoing appeals and reviews, but did not accept that they were a sufficient reason for being unenrolled. The Tribunal also accepted the applicant's claims about financial difficulties, but noted that it is a requirement for a student visa that an applicant have access to sufficient funds.
13. The Tribunal also expressly considered the applicant's claims about difficulties created by the COVID pandemic, but did not accept that they were a reasonable explanation for not having a certificate of enrolment.
14. The Tribunal also considered the submissions made by the applicant's agent to the effect that the applicant had an exemplary record as a student and that because he did not have work rights, the COVID pandemic had particularly affected him. However, the Tribunal did not accept these matters as warranting an adjournment.
15. In all these circumstances, I consider that it was not unreasonable in the Li sense for the Tribunal to refuse the adjournment application.
16. The applicant did not add to his claims before the court this morning. He just said that the Tribunal asked him to apply for another school, but he could not afford it at the time. Based on that concession, it seems that the Tribunal's decision that there should not be an adjournment was well-made. It sounds as though, if there had been an adjournment, the applicant would still not have been able to afford to enrol in another course and would not have enrolled in another course.
17. All in all, it seems to me that there is no proper basis to say that there was any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. Having decided not to grant an adjournment, the only possible outcome was that the delegate's decision be upheld. That is because the applicant did not have or could not satisfy the mandatory requirement of a certificate of enrolment or an offer of enrolment in writing, and as I have stated, the refusal of the adjournment application was reasonable in all the circumstances.
18. Consequently, the application will be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding twenty-seven (27) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the ex tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Riley delivered on 15 October 2025.