Mohammed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1871

1. On 17 November 2018, the applicant first arrived in Australia as the holder of a student visa and remained in Australia until 23 September 2024.
2. On 30 September 2024, whilst offshore, the applicant applied for the visa (Court Book (CB) 28 to 57).
3. On 3 October 2024, the applicant returned to Australia as the holder of a Temporary Graduate (Subclass 485) visa.

1. On 14 November 2024, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa as the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant criteria set out in cl 500.212 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations (CB 79 to 83).
2. As said, because the applicant was offshore at the time he made the application for a student visa, there were no review rights to the Tribunal. The grounds in the applicant's amended application before this Court seeks to challenge the delegate's decision on various grounds. For that reason, I will analyse the delegate's decision where relevant under the grounds for judicial review.

1. On 11 December 2024, the applicant filed an application with this Court for judicial review of the delegate's decision in the following terms (as per original) (Judicial Review Application) (CB 1 to 7):
   1. The Department of Home affairs made an error in their decision to resufse (sic) my student visa application. The department failed to consider my compelling circumstances presented
   2. The decision is affected by jurisdictional error and was not determined according the law, as the circumstances at the time of the application were not considered and were overlooked.
2. At that time, the applicant was assisted by a registered migration agent, Mr Muhammad Rafi (Mr Rafi). The applicant confirmed that Mr Rafi prepared his Judicial Review Application and supporting affidavit affirmed on 10 December 2024.

1. This Court listed the Judicial Review Application for a callover before Judicial Registrar Munro on 30 May 2024.
2. On 30 May 2024, the applicant did not appear at the callover and the proceedings were dismissed for non-appearance pursuant to r 13.06(1)(c) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) General Federal Law Rules 2021 (Cth) (dismissal decision).
3. On 12 June 2025, the applicant filed an application in a proceeding with this Court seeking the orders of 30 May 2025 be set aside and the proceedings be reinstated (Reinstatement Application) (CB 19 to 22). The accompanying affidavit of the applicant affirmed on 12 June 2025 and witnessed by Mr Rafi set out the following information (as per original) (CB 23 to 27):
   1. On the 11th of December 2024; i lodged my FCC application.
   2. At the time of lodgement, due to the higher legal costs associated with judicial proceedings within Australia, i took advise from some legal practitioners and legal aid within Australia. Considering my circumstance, I created another email address dedicated for FCC correspondence and lodged my application through this new email.
   3. As this email address was not in my regular use and was not my primary email; i accidently overlooked the emails received; which unfortunately became the reason for missing the notification of the callover - leading to this decision by the registrar.
   4. Pursuing natural justice, i wish for my case to be given a fair chance, and I want my juidica review application to be heard properly
   5. I request for the court to set aside the given orders and allow for this application to be reinstated.
4. On 22 July 2025, pursuant to Order 4 of the orders made by Judicial Registrar Munro dated 25 June 2025, the applicant filed an amended application and further affidavit in support of his Reinstatement Application. From 22 July 2025, the applicant was no longer assisted by Mr Rafi.
5. On 14 August 2025, Judicial Registrar Munro vacated the orders made on 30 May 2025 in relation to the dismissal decision and made further orders listing the matter for final hearing.
6. On 28 August 2025, the proceedings were docketed to my list and set down for hearing before me.

1. The applicant's amended application accepted for filing on 22 July 2025 contained the following grounds for judicial review (as per original):

GROUNDS OF APPLICATION-STATEMENT

I respectfully say that I am a genuine international student and I have a strong intention to return to India after my studies, supported by documentary evidence, I have maintained visa compliance and a clean immigration history. The refusal was based on assumptions rather than facts, and failed to properly consider supporting evidence.

1. Jurisdictional Errors in Visa Refusal

I submit that the decision made by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on 14 November 2024 to refuse my Subclass 500 Student Visa is infected by jurisdictional error.

The delegate:

(a) Failed to consider probative and relevant evidence submitted, including my clear and documented intentions to return to India after studies.

(b) Relied on speculation rather than concrete evidence to conclude that I lacked incentive to return to India.

(c) Gave insufficient weight to my prior visa compliance history and academic motivations.

(d) Misapplied Ministerial Direction 106 by ignoring economic and personal circumstances which strongly supported my claimed intention to return home.

Grounds: Department Overlooked Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) Explanation

I respectfully set out the following grounds showing that the delegate of the Department of Home Affairs overlooked my Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) explanation. My intentions, circumstances, and supporting reasons were clearly stated in my GTE letter (pages 67-69), of the court book, but these were not properly considered in the visa refusal reasons (pages 80-83) of the court book.

1. Detailed and Genuine Explanation of Intentions (GTE Statement)

• On pages 67-69, of the court book I provided a full and honest account of my circumstances, including:
• My strong family ties in India, including immediate family, community links, economic circumstances, and property.
• My clear intention to return to India after finishing my studies, as demonstrated by my family responsibilities and future plans.
• My reasons for choosing to study in Australia, specifically mentioning the high standard of practical education and my prior experience in the Australian system.
• A genuine account of how the proposed course will benefit my future in India, detailing economic prospects and career opportunities there.

• 2. The Delegate Overlooked My Specific Evidence
  • According to the refusal letter (pages 80-83), of the court book the delegate claimed I did not provide "convincing evidence" that my intended course would benefit my future employment or that I had strong reasons to return to India.
  • The delegate suggested I did not show sufficient economic ties or reasons for not studying in my home country.
  • However, my GTE statement addressed these very issues:
  • I clearly outlined India's economic growth and career prospects for hospitality graduates, including specific salary details, job roles, and how Australian qualifications are regarded in India.
  • I provided reasons for not pursuing the course in India, such as the lack of practical exposure and quality, and explained why the Australian education system is preferable for my field.
  • I detailed family and community connections, as well as business and property interests in Hyderabad, showing clear social and economic incentives to return.
• 3. Lack of Proper Weight Given to My GTE Evidence
  • The refusal reasons repeat generic concerns about lack of "economic ties" and "motivation to study in Australia for genuine reasons," but do not address the specific facts I gave about my background and plans.
  • The Department's reasons do not reference, quote, or consider the particular details outlined in my GTE letter, including my statements on family, employment, and economic context.
  • The decision instead appears to focus on assumptions or on general issues applicable to other cases, rather than on the facts of my situation.
• 4. Failure to Address Personal Circumstances and Supporting Evidence
  • The delegate did not give proper regard to my statements about:
  • My compliance with previous visa conditions
  • My ongoing studies and successful academic record
  • Detailed plans for resuming my life and career in India, as supported by my family's stability and investments
  • These points were all included in my GTE but not considered or outweighed by the delegate in the refusal letter.
• The grounds above show that my GTE explanation was comprehensive, detailed, and genuine. The refusal reasons fail to adequately, or at all, engage with the core points I raised in my supporting statements. This oversight led to a decision not based on the real evidence provided, amounting to a lack of procedural fairness and a critical error in the assessment of my application.
• 2. Department's Error in Handling Bridging Visa A (Associated with Student Visa)
• I lodged a Bridging visa A application on 09 October 2024 while I was onshore. This application was associated with my subclass 500 student visa .
• However, the delegate of the Department overlooked this bridging visa application and proceeded to refuse my substantive visa on 14 November 2024 without granting the BVA. I then lodged a formal complaint with the Global Feedback Unit (GFU) on 20 November 2024 to report this issue.
• Following my complaint, the Department granted my Bridging Visa A on 03 December 2024, with a backdated grant date of 09 October 2024 the date I originally lodged the application. This delay and error caused unnecessary uncertainty and stress and shows that the Department did not handle my matter properly from the beginning.
• 3. Department's Error in Handling Bridging Visa A (After I Filed My Federal Circuit Court Review)
• After filing my judicial review application in the Federal Circuit Court, I lodged Bridging visa applications on 17 December 2024 with lodgement confirmation I got from Federal Circuit Court and the proof of payment receipt that my application is under review and second application again on 19 December 2024 With stamped documents from the Court. Both the applications for BVA were associated with my judicial review application.
• However, on 3 January 2025, the Department issued a notification stating that my bridging visa application was invalid. Again, I had to lodge a complaint with the Global Feedback unit on 8 January 2025 to resolve this issue.
• Following this second complaint, the Department finally granted my Bridging Visa A on 21 February 2025, correctly linking it to my ongoing judicial review application. This second error shows continued administrative issues in the handling of my case.
• 4. These administrative lapses created uncertainty, delayed lawful status recognition, and denied the procedural clarity that i was entitled to under law.
• 5. Taken together, the Department's conduct reflects a pattern of procedural mishandling and legal misapplication which has materially affected my rights and opportunities to have my case properly assessed.
• I acted consistently in good faith, provided full and verifiable documentation, complied with immigration requirements, and pursued this review in a timely and respectful manner.
• Given the arguable case of jurisdictional error, I respectfully requests that the Federal Circuit and Family Court to reinstate the judicial review application, so that these legal and procedural errors can be examined and determined in accordance with law.

1. The matter first came before me for hearing on 26 September 2025 (First Hearing). On that occasion, the applicant appeared at the hearing before me as a litigant in person. The applicant did not require the assistance of an interpreter. Mr James Fyfe (Mr Fyfe), a solicitor from MinterEllison, appeared for the Minister. Mindful of the Court's duty to unrepresented litigants (Hamod v New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375 at [309] to [316]; SZRUR v Minister Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 146; (2013) 216 FCR 445 at [37]), I explained to the applicant the role of the Court in undertaking judicial review. I ensured the applicant was in possession of all relevant documents, namely the Court Book, amended application accepted for filing on 22 July 2025, supporting affidavit of the applicant filed on 22 July 2025, the applicant's written submission filed on 12 September 2025 and the Minister's written submission filed on 22 September 2025. At the First Hearing, the applicant handed up written submissions in reply dated 26 September 2025.
2. The evidence before the Court comprised of the Court Book tendered by the Minister, which was marked "Exhibit R1".
3. At the First Hearing, the applicant relied on the amended application accepted for filing on 22 July 2025, his written submissions dated 12 September 2025 and his written submissions in reply handed up during the hearing dated 26 September 2025. The Minister relied on his submissions filed on 22 September 2025. I also had the benefit of oral submissions from both the applicant and Mr Fyfe. At the hearing, I granted leave to the Minister to file further submissions and granted leave to the applicant to file further submissions in reply.
4. The matter came back before me for hearing on 5 November 2025 (Second Hearing). At the Second Hearing, the Minister tendered the affidavit of Alexander John Mowbray affirmed on 3 October 2025, which annexed the applicant's immigration history and demonstrated the applicant's offshore location at the time of the student visa application. The applicant relied on his further written submissions in reply dated 16 October 2025 and the Minister relied on his further written submissions dated 3 October 2025. I also had the benefit of further oral submissions from both the applicant and Mr Fyfe. Following the Second Hearing, I granted leave to the Minister to file further written submissions dated 14 November 2025. The applicant, despite being a litigant in person, articulated his grounds clearly in oral submissions, which are set out below.

1. In the amended application, the applicant by grounds 1(a) and 1(d) alleged the following:

(a) Failed to consider probative and relevant evidence submitted, including my clear and documented intentions to return to India after studies.

(d) Misapplied Ministerial Direction 106 by ignoring economic and personal circumstances which strongly supported my claimed intention to return home.

1. At the hearing before me, the applicant clarified that by these grounds, he was alleging that the delegate, for the purposes of cl 500.212 in considering whether the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, misapplied Direction No. 106 - Assessing the genuine entry and stay requirements for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications (Direction No. 106) in that the delegate did not consider probative and relevant evidence provided by the applicant that went to various factors stipulated in the said direction. The probative evidence that was said not to have been considered was first, evidence in relation to the applicant's economic circumstances and second, the applicant's explanation as to the course value.

Failure to consider the applicant's economic circumstances

1. In relation to the economic circumstances, the applicant argued that [8(c)] of Direction No. 106 required the delegate to have regard to the economic circumstances of the applicant, and the applicant said that he had given the following evidence which the delegate failed to consider:

(a) The following statement by the applicant in his undated genuine temporary entrant statement (GTE statement) (CB 67 to 69):

I belong to a financial stable business family. My family has multiple investments and having various sources of income and properties in Hyderabad, India where our ancestors have been living for long time and we are well settled with deep family roots. Both the employment situation and the economic conditions are favourable in India. India is a country that is experiencing rapid economic growth and is widely very famous for its delicious foods. It is in India that I intend to settle down with my family in the near future.

(b) A HDFC Bank "Balance Confirmation Certificate" dated 27 September 2024 issued to the applicant's brother, confirming that the balance of the savings account in the applicant's brother's name was approximately AUD$15,457 as at 27 September 2024 (CB 71).

(c) An affidavit of support sworn by the applicant's brother on 14 October 2024, stating that the applicant's brother was the account holder of the savings account with a balance of approximately AUD$15,457 and "That my Younger brother MOHAMMED ABDUL HAMEED is presently residing at Australia and he applied for Extension of Visa" (CB 74).

1. The applicant argued that [8(2)(c)] of Direction No. 106 required the delegate to consider the applicant's economic circumstances and that there was no requirement in the said paragraph that the assets had to be held in the applicant's personal name.

1. In relation to the course value, the applicant pointed to the delegate's reasons where it was considering the factor under [8(2)(a)] of Direction No. 106 and whether the applicant had reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in his home country if a similar course was available (CB 81, second last paragraph). The applicant submitted that in making the following finding, the delegate overlooked probative evidence provided by the applicant:

The applicant has failed to address whether similar courses are available in their home country or region. The applicant provided limited evidence that they have investigated alternative study destinations, education providers or courses of study available to them. The lack of consideration by the applicant raises concerns regard their genuine motivation to study in Australia.

1. The applicant then pointed to the fact that in his GTE statement the applicant said the following (CB 67):

While there are educational institutions in India that offer hospitality courses as well, they do not offer the same level of instruction, exposure to other cultures, or standards of study as what I would receive in Australia. In India they follow a traditional model and focus just on theory and have no practical aspects. They don't even run practical classes and tests as it is done here in Australia which carves out the real Chef and hospitality out of an individual. In addition, I have previously studied and have completed my certificate III, IV and diploma here in Australia and I have understood how good the education system is as compared to other countries.

1. Further, the applicant submitted that [8(2)(a)] of Direction No. 106 required the delegate to consider any reasonable reasons for an applicant not studying in their home country. The applicant said at the Second Hearing that he had provided a reasonable reason, being (Tp17.24-31):

...the direction paragraph 8(2)(a) requires the delegate to allow for any reasonable motives established by the primary applicant for not studying in their home country. What I believe is I provided a reasonable motive. Australian courses offer practical industry relevant training unlike the theoretical focus in India. The delegate did not assess whether this motive was reasonable. Instead, they faulted me for not providing an exhaustive list of alternative colleges. This imposes a requirement not found in the law. This criterion is about being a genuine student, not an exhaustive researcher. That's what I would like to say on that.

Failure to consider subcl 500.212(c) and the factors in [11] of Direction No. 106

1. The applicant argued that in this case the delegate's reasons disclosed that it was considering all of the factors stipulated in subcll 500.212(a), and (b), and (c) of the Regulations. However, the applicant alleged that the delegate, in considering whether there were any other relevant matters for the purposes of subcl 500.212(c), failed to have regard to the evidence that he had "successfully completed Certificate III and IV in commercial cookery and Diploma of Hospitality Management here in Australia" (GTE statement, CB 67), being the factors set out in [11(1)(b)(i), (iii) and (iv)] of Direction No. 106. Further, the applicant alleged the delegate failed to have regard to the fact that the applicant had a positive study history in that he did not have a history of starting courses but not completing them or any study gaps, being factors specified in [11(1)(b)(v) and (vi)] of Direction No. 106.

1. In the amended application, the applicant by grounds 1(b) and 1(c) alleged the following:

(b) Relied on speculation rather than concrete evidence to conclude that I lacked incentive to return to India.

(c) Gave insufficient weight to my prior visa compliance history and academic motivations.

1. The applicant pointed to the delegate's decision where the delegate stated "I am concerned that the applicant intends to use the student visa program as a way to maintain residence in Australia rather than to further their education as a genuine student" (CB 82, last paragraph). The applicant's complaint in relation to that statement was that it was based on "unreasonable speculation" and was made in circumstances where the delegate failed to consider the evidence put forward by the applicant as to his positive record of compliance with visa conditions and history of completing courses of study. The applicant also alleged the delegate was required to consider his positive record of compliance under subcl 500.212(b), but failed to do so.

1. In considering the applicant's grounds, it is helpful to set out the legislative provisions and how Direction No. 106 interacts with those provisions and identify any relevant authorities.

1. As at the time of the delegate's decision, cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations, with effect from 23 March 2024, was as follows:

500.212

The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student:

(a) 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

(b) because 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. In considering whether the applicant satisfied cl 500.212 of the Regulations, the delegate was required, pursuant to s 499(2A) of the Act, to have regard to Direction No. 106, which similarly came into effect from 23 March 2024 and applied to applications for student visas and student guardian visas made after 23 March 2024: see fifth paragraph under "Application" in Direction No. 108 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.
2. The following features of Direction No. 106 are noted:

(a) [7(2)] provides that decision-makers should not use the factors specified in Direction No. 106 as a checklist and specifically notes that "there may be other relevant factors, other than those set out in this direction that a decision maker needs to consider when assessing an applicant's visa application".

(b) [7(6)] stipulates that if a decision-maker is not satisfied that an applicant satisfies subcl 500.212(a) of the Regulations, the decision-maker is not required to proceed to consider the applicant against the remaining subcll 500.212(b) or (c). Similarly, if a decision-maker is not satisfied that an applicant satisfies subcl 500.212(b) of the Regulations, the decision-maker need not proceed to consider the applicant against the remaining subcl 500.212(c).

(c) [8] sets out that decision-makers should have regard to the applicant's circumstances in their home country, the applicant's potential circumstances in Australia and the value of the course to the applicant's future, for the purposes of considering the applicant's circumstances under subcl 500.212(a)(i) of the Regulations.

(d) [9] provides that a decision-maker should have regard to the applicant's immigration history, which includes the applicant's previous visa applications for Australia and other countries and the applicant's previous travels to Australia and other countries for the purposes of considering subcl 500.212(a)(ii) of the Regulations.

(e) [11] sets out that a decision-maker should have regard to any other relevant matter for the purposes of considering subcl 500.212(c) of the Regulations. Any other relevant matter relevantly includes if the applicant previously held a student visa - whether they were reasonably engaged in the course of study for which the visa was granted ([11(b)], having regard to, inter alia, whether the applicant commenced and completed their course as scheduled ([11(b)(iii)]; whether the applicant has a history of starting, but not completing courses ([11(b)(v)]; and whether the applicant has study gaps of concern, a pattern of changing or deferring courses, changing to unrelated courses or changing education providers ([11(b)(vi)].

1. I note that the Full Federal Court in Dait v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 25 (Dait) considered whether a decision-maker was required to consider subcll (b) and (c) of cl 500.212 of the Regulations if the applicant did not satisfy subcl (a).
2. Their Honours Jagot, Bromwich and Lee JJ in Dait said the following:
   1. The presently relevant criterion, clause 500.212, requires satisfaction of a single state of affairs. It contains one sentence. The conjunction "because" connects the chapeau with subcl (a), implying a relationship of cause and effect: Pearce DC, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (9th ed, LexisNexis Australia, 2019) (at [12.11]). The conjunction "and" also marries subcll (a), (b) and (c), each of which is connected back to the chapeau by the combined conjunctive effect of the terms "because" and "and". Further, each of subcll (a)(i)-(iv) and (b)(i)-(ii) is connected to its parent and, by extension, to the chapeau, by way of a colon or the conjunction "and". This creates a waterfall effect, brought to a close by the full stop at the end of subcl (c). The combined effect of "because", "and" and the use of colon unites each composite part of cl 500.212, giving rise to "a whole idea or conception: "a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student": Eros (at [8]). This reading is supported by the verb "is" in the chapeau, which encapsulates a single state of being.
   2. In saying this, subcll (a), (b) and (c) nonetheless demand discrete inquiries as a matter of language and can be read and understood in isolation. Accordingly, satisfaction of cl 500.212 requires the cumulative satisfaction of discrete elements. Each of subcll (a), (b) and (c) are integral elements of the criterion. These elements are bookended by conjunctive devices, which reflect the need for the decision-maker to undertake a piecemeal analysis, and for the applicant to satisfy each step in that analysis in order to qualify as "a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student". If a decision-maker is not satisfied that an applicant meets subcl (a) or (b) alone, the decision-maker need not continue their inquiry. This is because an adverse finding in relation to either subcl (a) or (b) forecloses any possibility of a favourable outcome.
3. The Full Federal Court in Dait found that despite the fact that subcll (a), (b) and (c) of cl 500.212 of the Regulations combine to become a "whole idea or conception" for what constitutes a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, by way of statutory construction each subclause should be read as a discrete element that requires cumulative satisfaction to satisfy the GTE criterion. Accordingly, the decision-maker is not obliged to proceed its analysis to the next subclauses if either subcl (a) or (b) of cl 500.212 is not met. As Jagot, Bromwich and Lee JJ said at [35(4)] in Dait "If a decision-maker is satisfied that an applicant does not meet the criterion in either subcl (a) or (b), they need not proceed further".
4. I will now turn to consider each of the applicant's grounds for judicial review.

1. Before analysing the delegate's decision, I note that this Court in considering the reasons of the delegate to assess whether the delegate has fulfilled its statutory duty in accordance with law, the Court must do so without an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at [30]. In relation to this point, in Da Silva v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1826, Papadopoulos J at [40] articulated the application of this principle as follows:

It is inappropriate for the Court to insert itself into a quasi-fact-finding role in order to establish whether an approach taken by a Tribunal was reasonable in the circumstances. ...the Tribunal's process of reasoning is to be assessed with appropriate deference towards the Tribunal's scope of decisional freedom.

1. On a fair reading of the delegate's decision, I find the delegate has only considered the matters required to be considered in subcl 500.212(a) of the Regulations, and after weighing up those matters, was not satisfied subcl 500.212(a) was met and accordingly found that cl 500.212 in whole was not met and the applicant was not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student in Australia. My reasons for so finding are as follows.
2. The delegate noted in its reasons that the applicant had lodged a student visa application on 30 September 2024 and submitted to the Department of Home Affairs (Department) a Confirmation of Enrolment (CB 66) to undertake study in two courses, an Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management and a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) (CB 81). Pausing there, the applicant submitted to the Department a number of documents to support his student visa application including, inter alia, the applicant's GTE statement (CB 67 to 69), the HDFC Bank Balance Confirmation Certificate dated 27 September 2025 (CB 71) and the affidavit of support of the applicant's brother sworn on 14 October 2024 (CB 74). Given that the delegate referred to parts of the applicant's GTE statement in its reasons, I find the delegate considered the documents provided by the applicant.
3. The delegate's reasons disclose that it then turned to consider "the applicant's circumstances in their home country". This is the language used in [8(2)] of Direction No. 106 which is under the subheading at [8] of the Direction which states "The applicant's circumstances (subparagraphs 500.212(a)(i)...)". Thus, the delegate has turned its mind to the mandatory consideration required to be considered by subcl 500.212(a)(i) of the Regulations, being the "applicant's circumstances" (CB 81, second last paragraph). The delegate then moved on to consider the applicant's "personal ties" to "their home country", which is the language used in [8(2)(b)] of Direction No. 106 (CB 81, last paragraph).
4. The delegate then turned its attention to the applicant's potential circumstances in Australia, which is the factor it needed to consider under [8(4)] of Direction No. 106. The first two paragraphs at CB 82 disclose that the delegate looked at the applicant's knowledge of living in Australia, and the various factors set out in [8(4)] of Direction No. 106 which included the level of research the applicant had undertaken into the proposed course of study and living arrangements ([8](4)(b) of Direction No. 106).
5. In the third paragraph at CB 82, the delegate then turned its attention to "the value of the course to the applicant's future", which is the factor the delegate needed to consider under [8(5)] of Direction No. 106.
6. The delegate in the next paragraph then considered the applicant's immigration history, which it was required to consider as stipulated by subcl 500.212(a)(ii) of the Regulations (CB 82, last paragraph).
7. In the final paragraph before the conclusion, the delegate stated "I have considered whether there are any other relevant matters. In this case, I have determined that there is none" (CB 83, first paragraph). I note that [7(2)] of Direction No. 106 provides "There may be relevant factors, other than those set out in this direction, that a decision maker needs to consider when assessing an applicant's visa application". I find that the delegate's final paragraph before the conclusion is a consideration by the delegate as to whether there are any other factors which may be relevant to its consideration of the matters set out in subcl 500.212(a) of the Regulations and whether the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.
8. The delegate then under the subheading "Conclusion" stated that "After weighing up these factors as a whole", which I find is a reference to the factors that it had just been addressing, being the factors summarised at [44] to [49] of this judgment. Having regard to the factors the delegate addressed in its reasons, I find the delegate was only considering the matters in subcl 500.212(a) of the Regulations. I also find that the delegate then proceeded to weigh up those matters against the relevant parts of Direction No. 106, being [8] and [9], and concluded it was not satisfied the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student having considered the matters set out in subcl 500.212(a). I find that having so concluded, the delegate then under the subheading "Decision" found that the criteria for the grant of a student visa in "clause 500.212 [was] not met by the applicant".
9. The above approach was entirely orthodox and consistent with the approach endorsed by the Full Federal Court decision in Dait, which is authority for the proposition that a decision-maker, for the purposes of applying cl 500.212 in accordance with law, is not required to consider each of subcl 500.212(a), and (b), and (c), before forming a conclusion as to whether the criteria in cl 500.212 is met. The Full Court in Dait made clear that a decision-maker would be acting in accordance with law if they decided to consider first subcl 500.212(a) and formed a view as to whether having regard to the matters set out in that subclause the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, and if it concluded the applicant was not, it did not have to proceed to consider the matters in subcll 500.212(b) or (c).

Failure to consider the applicant's economic circumstances

1. I find that the delegate did consider the factor required to be considered under [8(2)(c)] of Direction No. 106 which was in the following terms:

8. The applicant's circumstances (subparagraphs 500.212(a)(i) and 500.312(a)(1))

...

(2) When considering the applicant's circumstances in their home country, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

...

1. economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant to apply for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa as means of obtaining entry to Australia for purposes other than study or other than to accompany a Subclass 500 (Student) visa holder to Australia (as applicable). These circumstances may include consideration of the applicant's circumstances relative to the home country and to Australia;...

1. That paragraph required the delegate to consider whether there were any economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for him not to return to his home country. The delegate referenced the applicant's student visa application, to which the applicant had attached supporting documents being the applicant's GTE statement (CB 67 to 69), the HDFC Bank Balance Confirmation Certificate dated 27 September 2025 (CB 71) and the affidavit of support of the applicant's brother sworn on 14 October 2024 (CB 74). I find that even though the delegate did not expressly identify each document, the delegate was aware of those documents. That material disclosed the applicant came from a financially stable business family, his family had multiple investments and various sources of income and properties in Hyderabad, the employment situation and economic conditions in India were favourable and the applicant's brother's assets.
2. The delegate in its decision noted that the applicant had "not demonstrated economic ties" to his home country (CB 81, last paragraph). By this statement, I find that the delegate was simply stating it was not satisfied on the evidence that had been presented, which included the material identified in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, that the applicant demonstrated economic ties to India. I find that it was reasonably open to the delegate to find that the applicant had not demonstrated economic ties to his home country given the assets were in the name of the applicant's family rather than in the applicant's name, particularly in light of the fact there was no evidence the applicant would have access to those assets. The applicant argued before me at the First Hearing that he would inherit the properties and assets, but there was no evidence of that matter before the delegate (Tp27.4-5). The applicant's arguments in truth amount to a disagreement with the delegate's finding.

1. The applicant's arguments as to the delegate's alleged failure to consider probative evidence provided by the applicant as to the value of the course is directed at the factor under [8(2)(a)] of Direction No. 106 rather than [8(5)]. I find that the delegate did turn its mind to whether the applicant had reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in his home country, but concluded that it did not have evidence before it as to whether similar courses were available to the applicant in his home country or region and that there was limited evidence the applicant had investigated alternative study destinations (CB 81, second last paragraph). This finding was reasonably open to the delegate to make. I find that if an applicant does not provide evidence to a decision-maker's satisfaction as to whether similar courses are available in their home country or region, then it is reasonable for the decision-maker to find that the applicant has not demonstrated they have reasonable reasons not to undertake the study in their home country. Again, I find that in truth the applicant is asking this Court to engage in merits review, which this Court cannot do.
2. For completeness, I note that the delegate also addressed the factor in [8(5)], being the value of the course, in its decision (third paragraph, CB 82) and concluded that given the applicant had "successfully completed Certificate III and IV in commercial cookery and Diploma of Hospitality Management here in Australia" (GTE statement, CB 67), the delegate was not satisfied that on the evidence provided the applicant's proposed course of study would be of greater benefit in terms of the applicant's future employment given he had already obtained the noted qualifications.

Failure to consider subcl 500.212(c) and the factors in [11] of Direction No. 106

1. Given my reasons at [42] to [51] of this judgment, I reject the applicant's argument that the delegate's reasons disclosed that it was considering all the factors stipulated in subcll 500.212(a), and (b), and (c) of the Regulations. As said in those paragraphs of this judgment, I find that on a fair reading of the delegate's reasons, the delegate was only considering the factors stipulated in subcl 500.212(a) and in finding that the applicant failed to satisfy cl 500.212, the delegate was not required to consider the other factors stipulated in subcll 500.212(b) or (c).

1. To the extent the applicant's complaint is that the delegate did not consider his record of compliance as required to be considered under subcl 500.212(b), for the reasons set out at [42] to [51] of this judgment, I find that the delegate did not need to consider subcl 500.212(b) after weighing up the factors in subcl 500.212(a) and coming to the conclusion that the applicant did not meet the said criterion for entry and stay as a student (CB 83, second paragraph).
2. To the extent that the delegate needed to consider the applicant's immigration history for the purposes of subcl 500.212(a)(ii), and the factors in [9] of Direction No. 106, I find that the delegate when it noted in the last paragraph at CB 82 that "[t]he applicant previously studied in Australia" and "[g]iven the length of time the applicant has already spent in Australia, and the courses completed by them on their previous stay in Australia" did consider the applicant's immigration history in forming its decision (CB 82, last paragraph). It is implicit in those reasons that the delegate did not form an adverse view as to the applicant's immigration history.

1. By grounds 2 and 3, the applicant took issue with the Department's handling of the applicant's bridging visas, alleging that the Department's delay and oversight in its handling of the applicant's bridging visas reflected a pattern of mishandling by the Department. In reviewing those complaints, I find the allegations do not raise matters which impact the decision of the delegate under review. Accordingly, no jurisdictional error is raised by those additional grounds.

1. Given the applicant was self-represented, I reviewed the reasons of the delegate to determine whether there was any self-evident jurisdictional error: BGZ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1095 per Flick J at [11]. I have not identified any such jurisdictional error.

1. As no jurisdictional error has been disclosed, the application must be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Kaur-Bains.