Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 249

1. The applicant is a citizen of the Republic of India who applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) Visa on 8 August 2023 pursuant to the provisions of s. 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. On 28 September 2023, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements of cl. 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations), namely because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to remain in Australia only temporarily. Clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations relevantly provided as follows:

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. The applicant sought review of the decision of the delegate by the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
2. On 26 February 2025, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant had the assistance of an interpreter fluent in both the Punjabi and English languages at the Tribunal hearing.
3. On 25 March 2025, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate.
4. On 17 April 2025, the applicant filed an Originating Application for Review of the decision of the Tribunal.

1. At the hearing before the Court, the applicant relief upon the following Grounds of Review:
   1. I respectfully seek an order to quash the decision made by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and the Migration Review Tribunal and to substitute it with a more favorable decision.
   2. I intend to present additional evidence and statements to the Honorable Federal Circuit Court in due course, including crucial documentation pertaining to the Migration Regulations for a Student Visa (Subclass 500), which I was unable to provide during the Honorable Administrative Review Tribunal proceedings.
   3. The application for judicial review has been made due to the denial of procedural fairness by the Honorable Tribunal, which did not grant me a fair opportunity to effectively represent my case.
   4. Jurisdictional Error: Procedural fairness was denied as I was not given an adequate chance to present my evidence and arguments properly. The hearing was conducted via Microsoft Teams, and this format limited my ability to fully convey my case and submit relevant materials.
   5. Natural Justice: Natural justice was compromised as the degree of personal hardship I face due to the visa refusal was not given due consideration. I am experiencing significant financial, psychological, and emotional distress as a direct consequence of the decision.
2. Ground 1 merely asks for the quashing of the decision of the delegate and the "Migration Review Tribunal" and otherwise seeks the substitution of a more favourable decision. Such ground did not assert error and is without merit.
3. Ground 2 foreshadowed the presentation of " ... additional evidence and statement to the Honourable Federal Circuit Court in due course, including crucial documentation ... which I was unable to provide during the Honourable Administrative Review Tribunal proceedings." No such additional evidence, statements or other documentation was provided to the Court at the time of the hearing. Such ground did not assert error and is without merit.
4. Ground 3 asserted a denial of procedural fairness which was unparticularised and incapable of judicial consideration. It was without merit.
5. Ground 4 was a claim that the applicant was not given an adequate chance to present his evidence and arguments properly, in that it was asserted by him that because the hearing was conducted by Microsoft Teams it limited his ability to fully convey his case and submit relevant materials. The applicant made no submissions in respect of any ground of review at the time of the hearing before the Court.
6. As to Ground 4, the Tribunal had power to require the conduct of the hearing before it by the use of Microsoft Teams. It was a power able to be exercised at the discretion of the Tribunal in relation to matters of procedure pursuant to the provisions of s. 49 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth). The applicant did not object to the matter proceeding by Microsoft Teams before the Tribunal. The applicant's representative was advised by email on 11 February 2025 that the hearing would be conducted via video conference. [1] In a document entitled "Response to Hearing Notice" signed by the applicant and dated 17 February 2025, the applicant did not object to the Tribunal hearing proceeding by way of video conference. [2]
7. There was no evidence before the Tribunal or this Court that there was any other basis for a finding that the hearing before the Tribunal had miscarried. It was the responsibility of the applicant to provide particulars of what he asserted was procedurally unfair about the conduct of the hearing by the Tribunal. He has failed to do so. Otherwise, the Tribunal was under no obligation to afford an opportunity to the applicant to present his best possible case. [3] There was no merit to this ground of review.
8. Ground 5 was a claim that natural justice had been compromised because due consideration was not given to the degree of personal hardship which the applicant would face due to any visa refusal.
9. First, the Tribunal could not have considered the degree of personal hardship said to have been suffered by the applicant as a result of the visa refusal decision because there was no evidence then capable of being adduced concerning any such hardship at the time that the Tribunal conducted the hearing.
10. Second, the applicant provided no particulars as to how the hearing before the Tribunal resulted in natural justice being compromised. It was for the applicant to put any relevant material before the Tribunal in that regard, but he failed to do so.
11. The Court finds that the Tribunal had due regard to all of the evidence before it, and that the decision it made was open to it. It was a matter for the Tribunal as to the weight which it attached to such evidence. At [24] - [36] of its reasons, the Tribunal carefully considered those matters which went to the question as to whether the applicant intended genuinely to only stay in Australia temporarily. At [35] of its reasons, the Tribunal found as follows:

[35] However, on balance I am not satisfied the applicant genuinely intends to remain in Australia temporarily. He offered very limited and unpersuasive insights into his motivation for pursing his current course of study and struggled to articulate how this will assist in pursuing his future career goals. He lacked insight into his current course of study and could not name the education provider he claims he has been attending for four years. Aspects of his oral evidence differed from the details provided in writing shortly prior to the hearing, notable in respect of his future plans after his studies. His suggestion that he did not know he needed to provide detailed information in respect of his future plans, despite having a migration agent, was not persuasive. Similarly he provided brief, vague and uncorroborated answers when discussing his future circumstances in India and Australia. When invited to comment on certain omissions and variations when comparing the information in the pre hearing information form with his oral evidence, the applicant provided very brief and unpersuasive responses. Despite being afforded a number of opportunities to provide supporting material, the applicant has not sought to provide any documentation to corroboration his various assertions beyond submission of his COEs.

1. Ground 5 is without merit.
2. The applicant has failed to establish jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
3. The Grounds of Review are without merit and are dismissed.
4. The Court will hear the parties as to costs.

I certify that the preceding twenty-one (21) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Egan.

[1] See p. 85 of Court Book (CB) - Exhibit 1.

[3] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNVW [2010] FCAFC 41 at [49] per Emmett J.