Parvathaneni v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 446

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

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

1. The applicant seeks judicial review pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) of a decision of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) made on 5 February 2021. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) made 7 August 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a Skilled (Regional) (Class VB) (Subclass 887) visa (visa).
2. Reference in these reasons to 'CB' pages are references to the Court Book that was tendered and admitted as evidence at the hearing before this Court and designated exhibit 'R1'.

1. The applicant is a citizen of the Republic of India (CB 1, 39, 147, 176).
2. From November 2008 to June 2010, the applicant studied for a Masters of Information Systems at Central Queensland University (CB 43).
3. On 7 August 2013, the applicant applied for a Skilled Regional Sponsored (Provisional) (Class SP) (Subclass 489) visa (provisional visa).
4. On 30 October 2013, the applicant was granted the provisional visa (CB 159, 219-21). Condition 8539 in Sch 8 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) applied to the provisional visa and requires the holder to live, work or study only in an area specified as a regional or low-population growth metropolitan area of Australia for the duration of the provisional visa, which was four years (CB 219-21).
5. On 14 July 2015, the applicant and his (now former) wife returned to India to visit family. He was there injured in a motorbike accident (CB 235, 254 [13]). On 20 July 2015, the applicant was admitted to hospital and underwent foot surgery. On 24 July 2015, the applicant was discharged from hospital (CB 237).
6. The applicant returned to Australia and proceeded to live with a friend in Zillmere, Queensland. Due to the injury, he suffered pain when standing for extended periods and required several months to recover (CB 254 [13]). In total, the applicant lived in Zillmere for a period of 22 months (CB 41, 255 [19]).
7. The provisional visa was to expire on 30 October 2017 (CB 219, 221). At that time, the applicant was living in Everton Park, a suburb of Brisbane (CB 6, 41).
8. On 30 October 2017, the applicant applied for the visa with the assistance of a migration agent (CB 1-13, 35-7), naming his wife as a dependent applicant (CB 2-3).
9. On 4 April 2018, a delegate of the Minister requested further information from the applicant within 28 days, including evidence to support residency in a specified regional area (CB 19-34).
10. On 30 April 2018, the applicant provided personal particulars (CB 38-55) and a statutory declaration (CB 75) with his residential history as follows (CB 41):
    • From October 2011 to November 2013, the applicant lived in Redhill (postcode 4059), an inner-city suburb in Brisbane (CB 161). From June 2010 to October 2013, he worked as an attendant at service stations (CB 42);
    • From November 2013 to 1 February 2015, the applicant lived in Waterford (postcode 4133), which is a specified rural area (CB 161). During this time, he was unemployed (CB 42);
    • From February 2015 to November 2015, the applicant lived in Murwillumbah, a town in New South Wales (postcode 2484), which is a specified rural area. From December 2014 to August 2015, he worked at Dominos Murwillumbah; and
    • From December 2015 to October 2017, the applicant resided in Zillmere (postcode 4034) and then Everton Park (postcode 4053), suburbs in north Brisbane (CB 160). From June 2017 to December 2017, the applicant worked as an IT technician. From December 2017 onwards, the applicant worked at service stations (CB 42).
11. On 7 August 2018, the delegate refused to grant the applicant the visa (CB 158-62). The delegate found the applicant had not substantially complied with condition 8539 as he had lived outside of certain specified postcodes in Queensland for the relevant periods of August to November 2013, and December 2015 to October 2017 (CB 41, 159-61). The applicant therefore did not satisfy cl 887.221 of Sch 2 of the Regulations (CB 161).
12. On 27 August 2018, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision (CB 163-5).
13. On 28 January 2021, the applicant's representative submitted written submissions (CB 206-16) and supporting documents to the Tribunal.
14. On 4 February 2021, the applicant and his former wife attended a Tribunal hearing by telephone with the assistance of their legal representative and an interpreter of the English and Telugu languages (CB 242-5).

1. On 5 February 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant the visa (CB 252-6) (Decision).
2. In the Decision, the Tribunal identified the dispositive issue as whether the applicant satisfied cl 887.221 for the purposes of the Regulations (CB 253 [7]-[10]). The Tribunal set out the applicant's claims and evidence in CB 254-5 [11]-[23]. The Tribunal then proceeded to assess the applicant's evidence at CB 255-6 [24]-[28].
3. The Tribunal found that in residing in an unspecified area (Zillmere) for 22 months, the applicant did not substantially comply with condition 8539 and the Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant met the requirements of cl 887.221 of the Regulations (CB 256 [29]).
4. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claim that he did not understand that he had to live in a specified area as a condition of the visa (CB 256 [28]). However, the Tribunal noted that the visa grant notice clearly states that the visa was subject to condition 8539 (CB 219 and 221).

1. On 9 March 2021, the applicant and his former wife applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision (CB 257-64). The application for judicial review was supported by an affidavit affirmed by the applicant on 8 March 2021 (CB 265-90). The affidavit annexed a copy of the Decision and the passports of the applicant and his former wife.
2. The application for judicial review included the following nine grounds of review (CB 260-2):

1. This is an application for Judicial review seeking further justice. The decision was made by the tribunal does have Jurisdictional error. Therefore I am applying the judicial Review application in timeframe.

2. The matter should be considered by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia because the decision made by the Tribunal was unfair of any intellectual process because a legal error was made as to the construction of regulation cl.887.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause states that the applicant must have substantially complied with the conditions to which that visa is or was subject whereas the applicant substantially complied with the conditions to which that visa was subject. The word 'substantially' means 'to a greater extent'. The applicant complied with the visa conditions to a greater extent because the exceptional circumstances forced the applicant to not to comply with the visa conditions comprehensively.

3. The evidence was not considered, assessed, and investigated appropriately by the second respondent. The applicant was injured in India and required surgery in July 2015. The applicant submitted all the evidence regarding his surgery including x-ray reports and discharge summary. It was considered by the Tribunal that post OP was 'uneventful', but it was not considered that the applicant faced issues while walking, prolonged standing and running. The term 'uneventful' was clearly specified in the applicant's discharge summary provided to the Tribunal and it clearly explains that he faced issues while walking, running and prolonged standing. The evidence regarding his condition was not provided by the doctor as it was explained orally to the applicant post OP and treated with his consent.

4. The exceptional circumstances were not considered by the second respondent comprehensively. The applicant underwent a foot surgery, and he submitted all the required documents he received from the hospital. He did not take any certificate or letter from the doctor post OP in 2015 as he was not aware that he will be involved in such a situation. If he would have known that the letter or a medical certificate if taken from the doctor, would have helped him, he would have collected all the documents from the doctor in 2015. The applicant was not able to get letter from the doctor in 2021, before the Tribunal hearing because of the COVID-19 restrictions. He is willing to submit the letters and all the documents to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia as soon as possible.

5. The nature and complexity of the applicant's medical condition was not considered by the second respondent as it was clearly stated in the decision record that the evidence provided was not enough to prove that he was not able to live and work in regional area. It was clearly explained in the written submission that the applicant needed a person who could take care of him, provide support to him physically, mentally, and socially and help him in his daily activities. He needed to be under a person's supervision as was not able to walk, stand or do any physical activities due to which he stayed unemployed for a long time and his friends and family supported him financially.

6. The Tribunal did not consider and mention in the decision record that the applicant worked at Dominos in a specified regional area from December 2014 till June 2015. The applicant worked at Dominos from 22 December 2014 - 30 June 2015 while staying at 66/36 Albert Street, Waterford QLD 4133 (Nov 2013 - Feb 2015) and later he moved to 5 Rous Street, Murwillumbah NSW 2484 (Feb 2015 - June 2015).

7. The Member considered the not important facts and did not consider important facts. The accident, distress and financial hardship with leg injury were not even considered for compelling ground. Not going back and did not live in regional area was considered important and given a chance for me to speak. Whereas the visa was granted visa to work in Regional area and reside in Regional area if I had not complied with visa conditions because of there are not person to support me financially in regional Australia. Therefore I believe that there is procedure fairness in assessing my merit review application.

8. The Member applied exceptional circumstances not according to Law. It is not that I did not or I did not lived or did not want to live in Regional Australia for a long, that was beyond my control. The consideration of obtaining the work experience and residency in Regional Australia and my accident in India and separation with wife issues in Australia was not given weight when it should have been. Therefore I believe that tribunal decision does have Jurisdictional error.

9. Therefore I believe that the tribunal has made a jurisdictional error in deciding my application and I would like the Federal Circuit Court to examine my circumstances and send the decision back to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reassessment.

1. In the application for judicial review, the applicants sought only an order to quash the Decision and did not seek a writ of mandamus requesting the matter be remitted to the Tribunal. An application that fails to seek a writ of mandamus or prohibition, or an injunction, has the result of not properly invoking the Court's jurisdiction pursuant to s 476(1) of the Act (FRA18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 2287 at [15] and [21]). The applicants were unrepresented at the time of filing the application and may not have appreciated the importance of this technicality. The solicitors for the Minister have not raised this technicality in the written submissions and did not oppose an amendment when this issue was raised at the final hearing. The Court will order that the application dated 9 March 2021 is amended to seek a writ of mandamus. The Court has the power to do so, even on its own motion (Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship & Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 889 at [44]- [51]). The Court finds that it is in the interests of justice and the overarching purpose of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth) (Rules) to dispense with non-compliance with the Rules, for the purpose of amending the originating process in this proceeding.
2. On 22 September 2021, a registrar of this Court ordered that the applicants file and serve any amended application with proper particulars, any supplementary court book, written submissions and additional affidavit material at least 28 days before the hearing.
3. On 14 April 2025, the applicant's former wife filed a notice of discontinuance and thereafter has not been a party to this proceeding.
4. On 17 June 2025, the applicant filed written submissions. These submissions were prepared by a solicitor or solicitors (Taylor Rose) who acted for the applicant from June 2025 until 17 December 2025. The submissions identified the following three grounds of review:

The applicant contends that the Tribunal;

(a) failed to consider relevant information and evidence, including medical documentation and compassionate circumstances explaining a breach of visa condition 8539;

(b) misinterpreted or misapplied regulation 887.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), particularly in its understanding of what constitutes "substantial compliance" with condition 8539; and

(c) reached a conclusion that was legally unreasonable by finding no substantial compliance despite undisputed evidence of long-term regional residence and compelling reasons for a period of non-regional residence.

1. The Minister prepared a Court Book dated 28 September 2021 and an outline of written submissions filed 12 February 2026. The Court confirmed at the hearing that the applicant received a copy of these materials from the solicitors for the Minister.
2. The application for review was listed for final hearing before this Court in person at Melbourne on 26 February 2026. At the hearing, the applicant appeared in person, self-represented and assisted by an interpreter of the English and Telugu languages.
3. Mr McDermott of counsel appeared for the Minister.
4. As the applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave the applicant an opportunity to elaborate on, and further articulate the grounds of review, and to inform the Court of the basis on which the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error. The Court explained that it could not grant the applicant a visa and could not undertake a review of the merits of the Decision. However, the Court could send the amended application back to the Tribunal for reconsideration if there was a significant legal or factual error, or procedural failure by the Tribunal that meant the Tribunal acted contrary to law and which amounted to a material jurisdictional error.

1. The applicant confirmed that he would rely on the outline of written submissions filed 17 June 2025 and also asked to make further oral submissions.
2. The applicant explained that his lawyer had resigned from the law firm at the last minute, and he had been unable to obtain a new lawyer.
3. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant information and evidence, and the exceptional circumstances he was going through when considering compliance with the conditions of the provisional visa. After his accident, he was unable to stand for long hours and was having relationship issues, which meant his wife did not provide him with financial or emotional support. His childhood friend who resided in Zillmere offered free accommodation and emotional support, so he moved there. He 'tried to do my best to maintain the conditions of the visa' and had now 'lived in Australia for 17 years' so he did not want to lose the visa 'for silly reasons'. The applicant explained that he did not submit any supporting documents at the time of application for the visa because his agent had told him that two years in a regional area should be enough to satisfy the visa criteria. The applicant also claimed that he had difficulty securing appropriate employment in regional areas and that was made worse by his injury and surgery.
4. In the applicant's written submissions, the applicant referred to Justice Sackville's consideration of the phrase 'complied substantially' in Kim v Witton [1995] FCA 1508; (1995) 59 FCR 258 at 263 [F]- [G] (Kim). Substantial compliance allows for some breaches, provided they are not grave or wilful. The Tribunal did not refer to any established factors for substantial compliance, did not mention the purpose of the condition and did not consider whether the breach was deliberate. It was submitted that the correct approach is a multifactorial assessment as per Kim, which the Tribunal did not adequately consider.

1. Mr McDermott relied on the outline of written submissions filed 12 February 2026.
2. Mr McDermott identified that the applicant's nine grounds of review in the originating application overlap with the three grounds raised in the applicant's written submissions. Grounds one and two of the originating application provide context. Ground three asserts that 'the evidence was not considered, assessed, and investigated appropriately by the second respondent'. Grounds four to eight are further expressions of ground three. Ground nine was a simple statement of belief.
3. Addressing ground one of the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal did consider the applicant's personal circumstances and the explanations given for non-compliance with condition 8539 (CB 254-6 [13], [15], [17]-[23]) but rejected them (CB 255 [26]). The rejection of the circumstances as explicable of the breach of the condition were open to be made on the material. The Tribunal also did not constructively fail to exercise jurisdiction by failing to make findings as to the nature of the circumstances.
4. The Tribunal was also entitled to consider the lengthy period of time in which the applicant did not reside in a specified regional area. The Tribunal gave active and meaningful consideration to the reason and the duration of the applicant's non-compliance. The Tribunal did engage in the kind of analytical assessment identified in Kim (albeit without specific reference to the specific non-exhaustive factors). Ground two should also be rejected.
5. It was also open to the Tribunal to make a finding that the visa grant notice put the applicant on notice of the consequences of non-compliance, rejecting the applicant's confusion as to the requirements of condition 8539 (CB 256 [28]).
6. Regarding ground three, the applicant asserts in the written submissions that there is no evident and intelligible justification for the entire Decision, but that assertion ignores the clearly intelligible and logical findings of fact as made by the Tribunal at CB 256 [26]-[29]. The Tribunal could have readily found that the length of the duration of the breach was a factor that outweighed all others, without it being legally unreasonable. Nevertheless, the Tribunal considered all of the applicant's claims and reached an intelligible and logical conclusion that was clearly available on the applicant's own evidence.
7. It was submitted that all three grounds were in fact requesting impermissible merits review. The application for judicial review should be dismissed with costs.

1. In reply, the applicant reiterated that he could not find appropriate work, which is why he couldn't stay in a specified area. He submitted that he worked hard to obtain his visa, 'didn't do it intentionally' and was going through a hard time with his wife, health and mental health.

1. The application for judicial review contains nine grounds, most of which are narrative. As submitted by Counsel for the Minister, it is more convenient to consider the three grounds of review in the applicant's written submissions as the grounds upon which the applicant seeks to identify error by the Tribunal. The applicant's oral submissions at the final hearing were consistent with these grounds and did not raise any new issues or claims.
2. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272, the High Court said:

...In the present context, any court reviewing a decision upon refugee status must beware of turning a review of the reasons of the decision-maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision. This has been made clear many times in this Court. For example, it was said by Brennan J in Attorney General (NSW) v Quin:

"The duty and jurisdiction of the court to review administrative action do not go beyond the declaration and enforcing of the law which determines the limits and governs the exercise of the repository's power. If, in so doing, the court avoids administrative injustice or error, so be it; but the court has no jurisdiction simply to cure administrative injustice or error. The merits of administrative action, to the extent that they can be distinguished from legality, are for the repository of the relevant power and, subject to political control, for the repository alone."

1. The applicant's grounds of review, when considered against the Decision, seek impermissible merits review. The Tribunal in the Decision did give due consideration to the applicant's personal circumstances, health and unemployment (CB 256 [26]-[29]) but was not satisfied that the applicant substantially complied with the conditions in his visa (CB 256 [29]). That included his claim that he erroneously believed he was only required to live in a regional area for a period of two years (CB 256 [28]). There was no failure to consider relevant information or the evidence given to the Tribunal, and none was identified by the applicant in the written submissions or oral submissions made to this Court.
2. Clause 887.221 of the Regulations provides that if an applicant applies for a Subclass 887 visa on the basis of having held a Skilled Regional Sponsored (Provisional)(Class SP) (Subclass 489) visa which is subject to condition 8539, then the applicant must have substantially complied with the conditions of that provisional visa. The applicant was the holder of the provisional visa, which was of the subclass identified in cl 887.221(e) of the Regulations. The Tribunal found that to be the case at CB 253 [9], based on the visa grant notice produced (CB 217-22). The grant notice clearly stated that the visa was subject to condition 8539, and that failure to comply may result in visa cancellation, detention and removal from Australia (CB 221). The Tribunal found that the applicant did not substantially comply with the conditions of his visa because on his own admission, he lived in Zillmere and elsewhere in Brisbane for a period of 22 months (CB 254 [17], 255 [22] and 256 [29]). There was no error by the Tribunal in making those findings. Whilst the Tribunal did not refer to the decision of Sackville J in Kim, the Tribunal did consider each of the factors identified by his Honour as relevant when reaching the conclusion that the applicant had not substantially complied. As his Honour observed at 271[D] of the decision in Kim, it is a matter for the Tribunal to assess the weight to be accorded to those factors, having regard to the circumstances of the case. To the extent that the applicant asks this Court to reconsider that finding, the applicant seeks impermissible merits review.
3. The Decision and each finding made by the Tribunal was reasonable because they have an evident and intelligible justification. The issue to be determined by the Tribunal was whether the applicant substantially complied with the conditions of the provisional visa. That was a primary criterion for the grant of the visa. The Tribunal was not satisfied on the applicant's own evidence that there was substantial compliance. That was open, and a clearly rational and logical finding because the applicant did not reside in one of the designated postcode regions, but instead elected to spend a considerable period of time in suburban Brisbane. Whilst the applicant did explain the rationale for residing in a non-rural location, it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that there had not been substantial compliance and therefore the applicant did not satisfy the primary criterion for the visa. The findings of the Tribunal in the Decision were not findings that no rational or logical decision-maker could have arrived at on the same evidence (Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [130]-[131]). The Decision was not legally unreasonable and no aspect of it discloses material jurisdictional error.
4. The Court has also scrutinised the materials before the Tribunal, the recording of the hearing before the Tribunal and the Decision to identify any jurisdictional error, noting the Court's obligations as outlined in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392 at [58], [77], [100] and [112]-[114]. No jurisdictional error is found. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

1. The amended application for judicial review filed 9 March 2021 is dismissed.

1. The name of the first respondent is to be amended to 'Minister for Immigration and Citizenship', which is the current Ministerial title which changed on 13 May 2025.

1. The Minister sought the costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application for judicial review in the sum of $6,180.00, which is below the scale amount for a contested application concluded at a final hearing provided for in Sch 2, Pt 3, Div 1 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).
2. The sum claimed is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case and will be ordered to be paid by the applicant.

I certify that the preceding fifty-two (52) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Corbett.