Rambaksh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 596

1. The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 14 January 2020. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) refusing to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Vocational Education and Training Sector (Subclass 572) visa (Visa).
2. References in these reasons to CB pages are references to the court book that was tendered at the hearing and admitted in evidence as exhibit R1.
3. For the reasons set out below, the originating application filed on 4 February 2020 (Application) is dismissed.

1. The applicant is a female citizen of Mauritius who first arrived in Australia on 26 August 2008 as the holder of a student visa (CB 10-11, 42, 88). The applicant was subsequently granted three further student visas (CB 88-89).
2. On 26 June 2015 the applicant lodged a Visa application in order to study a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and an Advanced Diploma of Hospitality. This was her fifth student visa application (CB 42).
3. It is a criterion for the grant of the Visa that the Minister be satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, by reason of cl 572.223(1)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) (GTE criterion).
4. On 11 August 2015 the delegate refused to grant the Visa as they were not satisfied that the applicant met the GTE criterion (CB 82-92).
5. On 20 August 2015 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision with the assistance of a registered migration agent (agent) (CB 93-95).
6. On 16 June 2017 the applicant was invited by the Tribunal to attend a hearing on 24 July 2017 (CB 100-110). The invitation requested the applicant provide the Tribunal with evidence of enrolment in a course, past studies, and an explanation of any gaps in enrolment, ahead of the hearing, and attached a copy of Ministerial Direction No. 53 (Direction) issued by the then Minister under s 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) to provide guidance to decision makers in assessing the GTE criterion.
7. On 7 July 2017 the agent returned a completed Response to hearing invitation form along with a completed international student enrolment form and evidence of past studies (CB 113-126). On 23 July 2017 the applicant provided the Tribunal a submission referred to as a "Gap History Explanation" (CB 127-129). The same day, the agent provided a further short submission (CB 130-132) and a copy of an online complaint form apparently made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman regarding one of the applicant's education providers (CB 134-135).
8. The applicant attended the hearing with her agent (CB 136-138). It then appears no action was taken by the Tribunal for over two years until, on 29 November 2019, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on or respond to information pursuant to s 359A of the Act (CB 139‑142) (s 359A Letter). The information was that:

(a) the Department of Education and Training's Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) recorded that the applicant had not been enrolled in a registered course since 23 July 2017; and

(b) the Department of Home Affairs' movement records confirmed that the applicant's only bridging visa condition related to restricted work rights.

That information was said to be relevant to the Tribunal's review because it showed the applicant had stayed in Australia for over two years without enrolling in, undertaking or completing any study as a student, despite there being no restriction on her doing so (CB 141‑142).

1. On 13 December 2019 the agent responded submitting that the applicant was unable to enrol in a course while her Tribunal review remained on foot, attaching an email from an education provider in support (CB 143-146).
2. On 18 December 2019 the applicant was invited to appear before the Tribunal on 13 January 2020 (CB 147-150). The applicant attended that hearing without her agent (CB 156-157).
3. On 14 January 2020 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Visa (CB 168-181). The applicant was notified of that decision on 16 January 2020 through her agent (CB 165-167).

1. The Tribunal set out the background to the matter, including setting out in detail the applicant's submissions made in writing and at the two hearings (CB 169-177, [1]-[17]). It identified the relevant criterion was the GTE criterion and that it was required to have regard to the Direction (CB 178, [19]-[22]). The Tribunal noted its serious concerns about the applicant's "study history, lack of course progression, study intentions, extended period of time in Australia and the value of the proposed course to" the applicant's future (CB 178, [23]). It then went through the applicant's claims and circumstances in some detail.
2. I have reviewed and accept as accurate the Minister's summary of the Tribunal's reasoning at [16.1] to [16.7] of the Minister's submissions filed on 12 February 2026, and adopt and set that summary out below:

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had some family ties to Mauritius, including an adult daughter, but noted the applicant's evidence that she had only seen her daughter once since 2008. The Tribunal considered that factors suggesting the applicant did not have a strong incentive to return to Mauritius included that the applicant had not lived in Mauritius since 2008 nor returned since, and that her daughter had been raised by the applicant's former husband's family: [25].

The Tribunal found that the evidence indicated that the applicant had stronger financial ties to Australia than Mauritius, given her employment history in Australia over at least the last 7 years, and that the applicant did not appear to have assets in Mauritius: [26].

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had lived in Australia for over 11 years at the time of its decision, and had only successfully completed two short, inexpensive certificates. It also noted that she had not progressed to higher education studies despite having arrived in Australia as the holder of a diploma qualification: [27]. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant failed to progress in her studies because her education provider had closed down or because they had refused to provide her with qualification certificates: [29].

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had agreed in her oral evidence that she had 12 cancelled enrolments, and acknowledged her claim that this was for reasons beyond her control. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had satisfactorily explained the 'profound' lack of study progression over a very extended period in Australia: [30].

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was not enrolled in a course at the time of its decision but had expressed an intention to complete a Diploma of Hospitality: [28]. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided any persuasive reason for why the proposed course would further the applicant's employment prospects in Mauritius given she had already obtained Certificates III and IV in Commercial Cookery: [31]. Noting the significant time the applicant had been in Australia and her age, the Tribunal found that the applicant's future career planning was totally lacking in detail and foresight: [31].

The Tribunal recorded that during the second hearing, the applicant advanced for the first time a claim that if she returned to Mauritius, she feared violence from her ex-husband who she divorced in 2014: [33]. The Tribunal found that this claim caused it to have concerns about the applicant's intention to ever return to Mauritius and considered that this was a significant factor which may lead her to want to stay in Australia permanently: [33].

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was using the Student visa to maintain ongoing residency in Australia, and that she was not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student: [34].

1. The Tribunal accordingly affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant the Visa on the basis that she did not meet the GTE criterion (CB 181, [35]-[37]).

1. The Application identifies the following grounds of review:
   1. Jurisdiction error, Migration Act 474 & 474(2)
   2. Department/AAT accepted that the College was closed down & AAT/Dep[artment] did not hear the evidence that "no college was prepared to admit"
   3. Both decisions made by AAT/Department are against the Migration laws and natural justice.
2. The affidavit filed in support of the Application did not expand on those grounds.
3. The Minister filed a response on 2 March 2020 opposing the relief sought.
4. On 3 June 2020 orders were made on the papers by a Registrar of the Court setting out a procedural timetable and listing the Application for final hearing on a date to be fixed.
5. The Minister filed a court book in accordance with those orders on 16 June 2020.
6. The matter then remained unlisted for an extended period of time before being listed for a callover on 27 May 2025. Both parties attended the callover by telephone (the Minister by a solicitor). The notations to the orders made that day indicate that the Minister was to provide the applicant with an electronic and hard copy of the court book once the applicant filed an updated notice of address for service. Orders were otherwise made to amend the Minister's name, list the Application for hearing on a date to be advised and require the applicant and Minister to file their written submissions and any other documents 28 and 14 days ahead of the hearing, respectively.
7. On 8 December 2025 the Application was listed for hearing on 12 February 2026 at 10:15 am before another Judge of this Court.
8. On 21 January 2026 the parties were notified that the matter needed to be relisted to 26 February 2026 at 10 am due to judicial unavailability.
9. The matter was then re-docketed to me, retaining the same hearing date and time, with the parties notified by email on 4 February 2026.
10. On 12 February 2026 the Minister filed submissions. The applicant did not file any written submissions or other material in support of her case ahead of the hearing.

1. Prior to the hearing commencing, my Associate ensured that the applicant had a copy of the court book and the Minister's written submissions and that she had read the submissions. The applicant appeared at the hearing unrepresented assisted by an interpreter in the Mauritian (Creole) language, although it became clear very early in the hearing that the applicant was a very competent English speaker. The applicant said she requested the interpreter for when she might need more detail only: the interpreter was only required for a few minor clarifications early in the hearing but the applicant otherwise proceeded in English.
2. At the commencement of the hearing, I explained that I was undertaking judicial review, not merits review, and that I was unable to grant the applicant the Visa nor consider the merits of her Visa application. I explained the issues I was required to consider in relation to the Application and the procedure by which the hearing would be undertaken.
3. The Minister relied on their written submissions and the court book previously filed and tendered (without objection) as exhibit R1.
4. After confirming with the parties the documents before me, the applicant attempted to hand up a print out of an email exchange with an education provider. However, when the applicant confirmed that the material was not provided to the Tribunal, I reiterated that the judicial review process is limited to considering materials that were before the Tribunal or otherwise relevant to the Court's task on judicial review, and was not a reassessment of the merits of the underlying Visa application.

1. At the hearing the applicant was invited to expand upon and explain her grounds of review or otherwise explain what error or errors she asserted the Tribunal made.
2. The applicant made comprehensive and emotive submissions, although mostly addressed to her life in Mauritius or her generally negative experiences with Australia's overseas student education system. In particular, the applicant explained in detail her allegations that:

(a) she had been the victim of at least negligent, if not fraudulent, behaviours by one or more education providers, generally in 2008 to 2012. She stressed that authenticity was extremely important to Mauritians and the lack of authenticity and truthfulness caused her great concern;

(b) one provider had not released her certification to her at all, or had at least not released it in sufficient time to enable the applicant to utilise that certification;

(c) the certifications that were provided (being Certificates III and IV in Commercial Cookery) were not in her view legitimate because they did not include or incorporate a photograph of the applicant wearing her chef's uniform; and

(d) she was owed a refund on some or all of the payments she had made to various education providers, asking "who do I ask for my money back" and "how can I get my money back".

1. I reiterated that the Court's role was limited to judicial review and that it did not have jurisdiction, in this proceeding, to examine whether the applicant might have any legal recourse with respect to fees paid to education providers or different forms of certification.
2. The applicant also expanded on some of the matters raised mostly at the second Tribunal hearing with respect to the circumstances of her former marriage and her treatment by her ex-husband, including allegations of family violence, extortion and exposure to drug dealers. She submitted that she had come to Australia to study with the intention of bringing her then minor daughter to Australia, but that this never eventuated due to problems with the education providers and her visas. She indicated her daughter felt some bitterness as a result and that her daughter, who was now married and working in finance, would not support her if she returned to Mauritius.
3. The applicant explained in detail the difficulties she faced with the immigration system. She also made submissions about difficulties her cousin was facing in pursuing permanent residency in Australia. I explained to the applicant that the matters regarding her cousin were not matters raised before the Tribunal and, even if they were, they would not assist me in undertaking judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.
4. The applicant complained that the Tribunal was focused on whether she would return to Mauritius in circumstances where she asserted it was not her fault that she had not finished her studies and that therefore she should not have to return to Mauritius. I explained to the applicant that the Tribunal, in considering her Visa application, needed to be satisfied that she intended genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily in order to study. The Tribunal was expressly required to give consideration to the matters she complained about.
5. Overall it was clear that the applicant feels very aggrieved by the difficulties she has faced in navigating Australia's immigration and education systems, and her comprehensive oral submissions focussed on those matters. The applicant asked, both before and after the Minister's submissions, how she could progress her complaints or obtain refunds or other relief. When pressed again to identify what she considered might be an error in the Tribunal's processes or decision, or to discuss her grounds of review, the applicant said little other than repeating that she considered the Tribunal's decision was unfair given her circumstances. However, in the course of her submissions a few points were raised which might amount to a ground of judicial review.
6. The first potential ground (beyond those in the Application) was an allegation that the Tribunal prevented the applicant's agent from making any submissions on her behalf. This might be construed as a failure to afford a meaningful hearing or, perhaps, as an allegation of bias. When asked, the applicant confirmed that the agent only attended the first, and not the second, hearing. She could not identify precisely what her agent was prevented from saying. She conceded in substance that there had been time after the first hearing for written submissions to be made to the Tribunal and that she was not prevented from doing so. She also confirmed that her agent did make submissions in writing to the Tribunal.
7. Second, the applicant submitted that there was no basis for the Tribunal to say she only did "cheap" courses. The applicant asserted with some force that the courses she was enrolled in were not cheap and that she had paid all her fees in full. This might be construed as an allegation the Tribunal made a finding for which there was no evidence.
8. Third, in the course of her submissions regarding her past in Mauritius and fear of return, and her experiences with various education providers, the applicant might be construed as submitting that the Tribunal did not properly consider those matters.

1. The Minister relied on their written submissions filed 12 February 2026, which characterised the applicant's grounds as asserting a denial of procedural fairness and a failure to properly consider evidence, and addressed both in turn.
2. With respect to procedural fairness, the Minister's written submissions noted the Tribunal:

(a) invited the applicant to two hearings to give evidence and present arguments, both of which she attended;

(b) invited the applicant to comment on or respond to information under s 359A of the Act;

(c) considered the response to the s 359A Letter; and

(d) ensured applicant was properly on notice of the issues arising on the review.

The Minister submitted the Tribunal did not deny the applicant procedural fairness.

1. With respect to the ground that the Tribunal ignored evidence regarding a college closedown and a refusal to enrol the applicant, the Minister submitted this was not made out on the facts, as the Tribunal recorded the applicant's evidence that she was unable to enrol (CB 176‑177, [14] and [17]). The Minister further submitted that even if the Tribunal had accepted that she was unable to enrol while the Tribunal review was on foot, this would not overcome the evidence before it which indicated the applicant had been in Australia for a significant period of time but failed to progress in her studies.
2. As to the submissions made by the applicant at the hearing, the Minister addressed the matters that might amount to an assertion of jurisdictional error (identified at [39]-[41] above):

(a) With respect to the claim that the agent was prevented from talking at the first Tribunal hearing, the Minister took me to parts of the Tribunal's decision which made clear that the agent made submissions at the hearing (CB 174, [12] and CB 180, [31]). The Minister submitted there was no evidence to support the applicant's assertions, nor any indication of what information or submission the agent was prevented from putting to the Tribunal.

The Minister further noted there was no right to representation at a Tribunal hearing and it was clear that the applicant had been give abundant opportunities to be heard by the Tribunal.

Finally, if the ground were to be construed as an allegation of bias, the Minister submitted there was no distinct allegation made and, in any event, nothing to suggest a "reasonably minded, fair minded observer" might think the Tribunal might not have brought an open mind to the review.

(b) With respect to the complaint that the Tribunal said the applicant was only studying cheap courses, the Minister noted the relevant reference appeared to be in the decision at [27] where it said the applicant had "only successfully completed two short, inexpensive certificates, in the VET sector" (CB 179). The Minister submitted that, in context, the reference to inexpensive courses should be taken as a subjective assessment, relative to more expensive and longer tertiary education courses, and was not in any way objectionable. In any event, the Minister noted the relative value of the courses did not weigh heavily in the Tribunal's consideration and did not give rise to any error.

(c) Finally, the Minister noted that each of the matters the applicant complained of - the allegedly fraudulent education providers, the late provision of certifications, the complaint to the Ombudsman, the desire for refunds, and the applicant's concerns about her return to Mauritius - were all considered by the Tribunal as evidenced in its reasons. However, the Tribunal was simply not satisfied that they explained the applicant's significant lack of study progress and was clearly concerned that some of those matters - particularly her fear of her ex-husband if she returned to Mauritius - suggested she did not intend to remain in Australia temporarily.

1. Unfortunately for the applicant's genuine sense of grievance over her experiences with Australia's international student education system, this proceeding is not the forum in which such matters can be considered and judged. The Court's task in conducting judicial review was described by the Full Federal Court in Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21; [2022] FCAFC 3 at [17] as follows:

... 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. Applying that lens, I cannot identify any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's procedures or decision.
2. Ground one in the Application at most is a bare assertion of jurisdictional error. It is not particularised or explained, and the applicant did not expand upon it in oral submissions. Therefore, it does not require further consideration - it may in fact be no more than a precursor to grounds two and three.
3. Ground two appears to assert the Tribunal did not consider the applicant's evidence, provided most directly in response to the s 359A Letter, that "no college was prepared to admit" her. This ground was also not pressed in oral submissions. As set out in the Minister's written submissions, the Tribunal recorded the applicant's response to the s 359A Letter at [14] and the applicant's oral evidence to like effect at [17] of its reasons (CB 176-177). The lack of enrolment during the period of the Tribunal's review did not expressly feature in the "Consideration" part of the Tribunal's decision, only indirectly in the Tribunal's consideration of the applicant's "profound lack of study progression over a very extended period" of over 11 years in Australia. I also note the applicant's ground appears to overstate the evidence before the Tribunal: neither in her response to the s 359A Letter nor in her evidence at the second hearing (as recorded in the Tribunal's detailed summation of that evidence) did she assert that "no" college would admit her. At most, her evidence was that she had checked with "several" colleges, with documentary evidence only of one such attempt. The applicant also gave evidence that she had not yet decided at which school she might try to complete a Diploma of Hospitality, and suggested "perhaps Holmesglen", which was not one of the colleges the applicant apparently approached for enrolment while her Tribunal review was on foot.
4. I do not consider the Tribunal erred, let alone committed a jurisdictional error, in not expressly accepting or rejecting the applicant's evidence regarding her non-enrolment since the first Tribunal hearing. It was clearly aware of that evidence but, in considering the entirety of the applicant's stay in Australia, either holding or applying for a student visa, it was open to the Tribunal to assess the applicant's various explanations for her lack of study progress cumulatively and to not be satisfied with those explanations.
5. Ground three asserts the decision was against "migration laws" and natural justice. I cannot identify any breach, or misinterpretation, of the GTE criterion, the Direction, or any other "migration law" applicable to the Tribunal's consideration. Likewise, and for the reasons set out by the Minister at [43] above, I cannot identify any breach of the Tribunal's procedural fairness obligations. The applicant was afforded two hearings, information was properly put to her under s 359A of the Act and her response noted, and the applicant was clearly on notice of the issues arising on the review. Ground three is not made out.
6. As to the matters raised at the hearing before me, I do not consider there was any error with respect to the agent's representation of the applicant at the first hearing. Firstly, there is no evidence to support the applicant's assertion that her agent was prevented from making submissions on her behalf; to the contrary, the decision record suggests that at least some submissions were made by the agent (CB 174, [12]). Secondly, even if the Tribunal had prevented the agent from making submissions, that would not in my view constitute jurisdictional error in the circumstances of this case. The combined effect of ss 366A and 366B of the Act is that, while appearing before the Tribunal, an applicant is only entitled to an assistant and not to a representative, and the assistant is not entitled to present arguments or address the Tribunal unless the Tribunal is satisfied exceptional circumstances exist. Further, the Tribunal did not make its decision until some two years or more after the first hearing. If there was some particular submission the agent considered needed to be made that they were prevented from putting at the hearing, the applicant and her agent had ample time to make that submission in writing after the hearing. They did not do so.
7. If this ground can be construed as an allegation of bias, it is not made out. I agree with the Minister's submission that there is nothing to suggest a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an impartial mind to its review: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337; [2000] HCA 63 at [33].
8. The complaint regarding the Tribunal's characterisation of the applicant's completed courses as "inexpensive" also does not give rise to error. While I can understand and sympathise with the applicant that the amounts she has invested in her Australian education constitute significant sums, the Tribunal's analysis must be considered in its context and not construed "minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to error": Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6 at [30]. The Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's study progression, at [27]-[30], was concerned with the completion of only two courses at the Certificate level in over 11 years, in circumstances where the applicant originally came to Australia to study a Diploma, and had already obtained a Diploma in her previous studies in Mauritius (CB 179-180). The reference to the two Certificate courses as "short" and "inexpensive" should be read as the factual decision-maker properly making a comparison of those courses against the applicant's previous completed and intended studies at the higher Diploma level, as mandated by clause 12(a) of the Direction.
9. Finally, having reviewed the Tribunal's decision closely, I have concluded that the Tribunal did consider each of the matters raised by the applicant to the extent relevant to its consideration. The applicant's complaints about the Tribunal's treatment of those matters is not much more than a disagreement with the conclusion drawn from those matters. For instance, the applicant considers that her negative experiences with prior education providers in 2008 and 2011 explain her subsequent lack of study progression: the Tribunal did not agree, noting that it was assessing the applicant's intentions to remain temporarily in Australia in 2020.
10. I have concluded that the grounds in the Application and those discerned from the applicant's oral submissions are not made out. I have not identified any other error in the Tribunal's procedures or decision. As a result, the Application must be dismissed.

1. As set out in his written submissions, the Minister seeks an order that the applicant pay their costs fixed in the amount of $5,400.
2. I consider it is appropriate that costs follow the event and, in circumstances where these orders are being made after a final hearing and having regard to the work required by the Minister in this matter and the amount set out in sch 2, pt 3, div 1, item 3 of the scale to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth), I am satisfied that the costs order sought by the Minister is appropriate.
3. Orders will be made accordingly.

1. The application filed 4 February 2020 be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $5,400.

I certify that the preceding fifty-nine (59) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Mitchell.