Patel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1894

1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dated 4 January 2022, affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent ("the delegate") to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (class TU) (subclass 500) visa ("the visa").
2. For the reasons set out below, the application must be dismissed.

1. On 9 November 2018, the applicant, a citizen of India, first arrived in Australia.
2. On 21 July 2020, the applicant lodged an application for the visa.
3. On 29 June 2021, the Department invited the applicant to comment on information provided as part of his visa application, specifically in relation to the academic documents submitted. The Department found the documents to be "bogus" within the meaning of s 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").
4. On 12 August 2021, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the visa on the basis that they were not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for the grant of the visa.
5. On 26 August 2021, the applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate's decision with the Tribunal.
6. On 3 December 2021, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a hearing on 21 December 2021 to give evidence and present arguments.
7. On 21 December 2021, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal with the assistance of an interpreter.
8. On 21 December 2021, at the hearing, the Tribunal made an oral decision affirming the decision not to grant the applicant the visa.
9. On 4 January 2022, the Tribunal provided the applicant with a written statement of decision and reasons in support of the oral decision made at the hearing.
10. The applicant now seeks judicial review of the Tribunal decision.

1. The Tribunal identified that the issue for review was whether the applicant satisfied the Public Interest Criteria ("PIC") under cl 500.217 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) ("the Regulations").
2. At [5], the Tribunal noted that the Department made multiple attempts to verify the academic transcripts provided by the applicant in support of his application; however, it was found to be a bogus document.
3. The Tribunal at [6] noted that the outcome of the Department's checks revealed the documents provided by the applicant regarding his academic qualifications were not issued by the institution the applicant claimed to have attended.
4. At [8], the Tribunal explained its role to the applicant. The Tribunal explained that the applicant had only provided a copy of the Department's primary decision with his application.
5. The Tribunal at [9] noted that the applicant confirmed the documents were genuine when invited to comment on them and stated that he was unsure why his visa was refused.
6. The Tribunal, at [11], noted that the applicant stated he had sent the documents to the university he claimed to have attended for further verification. However, upon further inquiry, the Tribunal found that the applicant agreed he did not send the documents to the university, but instead a colleague of his, and the colleague had requested further time for verification.
7. At [14]-[15], the Tribunal explained the two-step process for cases involving PIC 4020 to the applicant. The Tribunal found two sets of conflicting evidence. First, it found that the Department's review revealed that the issuing bodies, as stated by the applicant, did not issue the documents provided. On this basis, the Tribunal found that it had no satisfactory evidence before it confirming that the applicant had satisfied PIC 4020. Second, the Tribunal found that the applicant stated that there was no evidence that would result in a waiver of PIC 4020. Therefore, based on these circumstances, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy cl 500.217 of the Regulations.
8. Accordingly, at [17], the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant's student visa.

1. The applicant advances one ground of judicial review contained in an Originating Application filed with the Court on 19 January 2022. The applicant's sole ground of judicial review is as follows (errors in the original included):

I came to Australia on 09/11/218 to study Masters in Professional Accounting from University of South Australia. I had to study an ELICOS (English course) followed by Masters in Professional Accounting. I successfully studied and passed my EIICOS and started my accounting studies. I studied one semester in Accounting , during this time I realised I developed more interest in studying technology and business so I got enrolled in MBIS (Master of Business of Information System) at Torrens University. I successfully finished nearly three semesters and then my visa was expiring so I had to apply for extension of student visa. I applied for student visa extension to study final semester. My student visa was refused stating that my Education qualification of Bachelors of Commerce is fraudulent. I still continued my studies and finished Master of Business information system from Torrens University.

Facts:

1. I had studied Bachelors of commerce. I also worked as an Accountant.
2. My initial student visa to study Masters in Accounting was granted on basis of my bachelors degree.
3. In my first semester of Masters of Commerce in University of South Australia I had 4 subject. I passed 3 subjects and failed in 1 subject. If my degree overseas was fake then how did I manage to study Masters of Accounting and passed 3 subjects out of 4? Luckily department didn't claim that my Australian transcript if fake or passed by cheating in exams in Australia.
4. I changed my course and successfully finished Master of Business information system from Torrens University. If I didn't have a bachelors degree then how come I was successfully able to finish Masters degree from Australia. A person has to be intelligent to pass Masters. A person who don't even have basic Bachelors' degree cant pass exams for masters.
5. Department has made an error in their findings. In India universities are not having all information in online database like Australia and for checking records they have to manually check where lot of time there is Human error or at times person is not bothered to check and waste his time (person is employed to work on particular task they don't want to waste time in checking certificates and waste their time as they still need to perform the task they are employed for)
6. I have studied bachelors of commerce and Masters of Business Information systems. I am also open for any questions related to bachelors of commerce subjects.
7. I am not sure why Department investigation has come as Fraudulent It is for department to recheck and get to bottom of this.
8. Department is basically claiming that my degree is fraud means that I should not have been able to work as Accountant which I did, I should have passed 3 subjects of first semester of Masters of Accounting from Australia, I should not have been able to successfully finish Master of Business information system from Austrian University.

1. The applicant appeared before the Court unrepresented. He was assisted by an interpreter. Prior to the hearing commencing, the Court ensured that the applicant was in possession of a copy of the relevant Court books and that the respondent's written submissions had been translated to him. The Court also ensured that the applicant had access to a pen and paper so that he could take notes during the course of the hearing, should he wish to.
2. At the commencement of the hearing, the Court explained it was undertaking judicial review, not merits review and the difference between the two types of review. The Court also explained the procedure by which the hearing would be conducted.
3. Despite Court orders, no written submissions or other material were provided to the Court by the applicant in support of his case. The applicant informed the Court that he had completed his studies in India and that the documents he provided to the Department were not bogus.
4. The applicant reiterated his claim that when checks are conducted in India, those tasked with undertaking the checks often fail to do so, as records are not available online. He had tried to contact the university himself; however, they would not cooperate or communicate with him.
5. At the conclusion of the respondent's oral submissions, the applicant was asked if he wished to state anything in reply. He answered that he just wanted a favourable decision so that he could build his career in Australia.

1. The applicant's sole ground of judicial review, as understood by the first respondent, alleges that the Tribunal failed to consider that the applicant had experience working as an accountant and had completed a Master's degree in Australia, which cannot succeed.
2. In a submission provided to the Tribunal on 12 December 2021 (CB 226-227), the applicant explained that he had worked as an accountant, and in relation to his Master's degree, stated the following:

In my First semester of Masters of Commerce in University of South Australia I had 4 subjects. I passed 3 subjects and failed in 1 subject. If my degree overseas was fake then how did I manage to study Masters of Accounting and passed 3 subjects out of 4?...I changed my course and successfully finished Master of Business information system from Torrens University. If I didn't have a bachelor's degree then how come I was successfully able to finish Masters degree from Australia. A person has to be intelligent to pass Masters. A person who don't even have basic Bachelors' degree cant pass exams for masters. (sic)

1. The partial transcript of the Tribunal hearing held on 21 December 2021, attached at Annexure RH-01 to the Affidavit of Rebecca Huang made on 30 October 2025, supports the fact that the Tribunal considered the applicant's submission dated 12 December 2025 (emphasis added):

Member: I have before me the Department file which includes the material you gave to the Department with and in support of your application and the Tribunal file that has all the information that has come here since you lodged your application for review. I will be making a decision based on the information on the files and what you tell me here today. So while the hearing provides immediate opportunity to ask me questions and discuss any concerns I have about your case, it is also important that you understand that it is your opportunity to tell me anything you think I should know in making the correct decision in your case. Do you understand everything that I have said until now?

Applicant: Yeah, I understand everything.

...

Member: I have read your most recent submissions, including your claims that you would not have been able to study at Masters level if you had not done a Bachelor's degree. Have you now finished your studies in Australia, Mr Patel?

Applicant: Yes, I finished my Masters and I'm doing my Cookery, Commercial Cookery.

1. Paragraph [15] of the Tribunal's decision stated:

The Tribunal is faced with two sets of conflicting evidence. On one hand, you have provided academic transcripts and documents that you say are accurate records of your study and academic performance and you claim those documents are genuine. The Department contacted the issuing bodies of those documents and has been advised that the documents are bogus and were not issued by the institute in question. I find the evidence of the Department more convincing, and therefore am satisfied that with your application you provided a bogus document, being your certification and study documents from the University of Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, and therefore find that you do not satisfy PIC 4020.

1. The applicant maintained the genuineness of the academic transcripts provided with his visa application. However, the information in the applicant's submission about his completion of a Master's degree in Australia and his work as an accountant was not sufficient to overcome the delegate's conclusion that the transcripts were non-genuine and bogus.
2. The Tribunal is not required to refer to every piece of evidence and every contention made by an applicant in its written reasons: Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184 (WAEE) at [46]. The Tribunal didn't have to make particular findings on the applicant's claims, as they were subsumed in the Tribunal's findings of greater generality with respect to the evidence at [15] of the decision: WAEE at [47]. The Tribunal's written reasons, read fairly and as a whole, demonstrate that the Tribunal took into account the applicant's evidence, including the submission, even though it was not expressly mentioned: WAEE at [47].
3. To the extent that the applicant complains that the Tribunal failed to put weight on his evidence, this ought to be rejected. The weight given to the evidence was a matter for the Tribunal as part of its fact-finding function: NAHI v Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 at [11]. The Tribunal's reasons at [15] clearly show that the Tribunal identified the conflicting evidence from the applicant and the Department and preferred the Department's evidence. This conclusion was open to it on the evidence before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal's decision not to adjourn the hearing and grant the applicant more time to verify the transcripts with a colleague fell within the bounds of legal reasonableness. The decision was made in circumstances where the applicant had been aware of the issues surrounding the genuineness of the documents since at least 29 June 2021, being the date of the invitation to comment. The applicant had been given the opportunity to comment on the genuineness of the documents and did so, raising the verification issue for the first time at the hearing on 21 December 2021.

1. In Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3 at [17], the task of a Court conducting judicial review was described in this manner:

...An application for judicial review is one in which the judicial branch of government reviews, by reference to legality or lawfulness, the decision or decisions of the Executive branch of government, here in the form of a decision of the Minister. The Court does not consider the merits or wisdom of the decision; nor does it remake the decision. The task of the Court is to rule upon the lawfulness or legality of the decision by reference to the complaints made about it.

1. Unreasonableness is where a decision-maker has come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have come to it: Minister for Immigration v Li [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 297 ALR 225 ("Li") at [28], or where a decision has been made that lacks an "evident and intelligible justification": Li at [76]. The test for unreasonableness is "stringent" and will only arise in rare cases. Unreasonableness is not a means for challenging a decision on the basis that the court disagrees with the consideration of matters or the evaluative judgements made by the decision-maker: Li at [30], [113].
2. In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11 at [11], Allsop CJ said the following concerning a review of a decision for legal unreasonableness:

The task is not definitional, but one of characterisation: the decision is to be evaluated, and a conclusion reached as to whether it has the character of being unreasonable, in sufficiently lacking rational foundation, or an evident or intelligible justification, or in being plainly unjust, arbitrary, capricious, or lacking common sense having regard to the terms, scope and purpose of the statutory source of the power, such that it cannot be said to be within the range of possible lawful outcomes as an exercise of that power. The descriptions of the lack of quality used above are not exhaustive or definitional, they are explanations or explications of legal unreasonableness, of going beyond the source of power.

1. As noted by the first respondent, the applicant's sole ground of judicial review merely expresses vehement disagreement with the decision of the Tribunal to find that the documents he provided were bogus.
2. The Court's role is restricted to judicial review, not merits review. It is not for the Court to substitute its own findings on factual matters for those of the Tribunal.
3. Given the totality of the information that was before the Tribunal, I am not satisfied that the factual finding that the documents the applicant relied upon were bogus reaches the stringent requirement of legal unreasonableness.
4. I am also satisfied that the Tribunal's decision not to adjourn the matter to enable the applicant to make further inquiries was not legally unreasonable. The applicant was well aware of the issue from the time the delegate refused his visa. The applicant was alerted to the issue in June 2021. The applicant had some months before the Tribunal hearing, in December 2021, to seek to verify that the documents were not bogus. The applicant did not do so. No error arises in relation to this aspect of the Tribunal decision.
5. The applicant's sole ground of judicial review has no merit.
6. As the applicant is unrepresented, the Court has perused the Court Book tendered and other relevant material. The Court is unable to detect any unarticulated jurisdictional error.

I certify that the preceding forty-four (44) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge D Humphreys.