Yadav v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 2081

1. The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (as it was) (Tribunal). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate (Delegate) of the first respondent (Minister) refusing to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (student visa).
2. For the following reasons, the application before the Court must be dismissed.

1. The applicant applied for the student visa that is the subject of this review on 30 September 2019.
2. On 8 November 2019, the Delegate refused to grant the applicant a student visa.
3. On 28 November 2019, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate's decision. The applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal on 9 August 2021.
4. On 15 September 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision.

1. The criterion at issue before the Tribunal was cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations), which provided:

500.212

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

(a) the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, 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

(iv) any other relevant matter; and

(b) 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(a), the Tribunal was required to have regard to Direction No. 69 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications (Direction No. 69), which was made under s 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act). Direction No. 69 required the Tribunal to have regard to a number of factors relating to:

(a) the applicant's circumstances in his home country, potential circumstances in Australia and the value of the course to his future;

(b) the applicant's immigration history; and

(c) any other relevant information.

1. Direction No. 69 indicated that it was not to be used as a checklist, but stated that the "listed factors are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant's circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion".

1. The Tribunal considered the applicant's circumstances in his home country, enrolment and course progression as follows at [37]-[41] of its decision:
   1. As to the applicant's circumstances in his home country, no evidence has been presented that the applicant's economic circumstances would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to India. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that political and civil unrest would result in the applicant choosing to remain in Australia indefinitely. While he referred to an issue in 2015 regarding his brother and a dowry payment as reason he did not return at that time, at hearing he said that this issue has now been resolved. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of military commitments that would present as a significant motive not to return. The Tribunal accepts that study in Australia is highly regarded and it accepts his reasons for not studying in his home country. There is no evidence he owns property or a business in India. The Tribunal accepts his parents and siblings are in India. It accepts he has no family in Australia and is not in a relationship. The Tribunal accepts that the above circumstances in India are indicative of a person who is only a temporary entrant and wishes to return to their country.
   2. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant has since his arrival in Australia in January 2014 successfully completed a Diploma of Management in 2014/2015 and part completed a Master of Business Administration. While the applicant submits he has completed 11 subjects in his written submission, the documentary evidence from the education providers submitted by the applicant indicates he successfully completed 7 subjects towards the MBA at AIPC and 3 at Holmes Institute, totalling 10 units. The Tribunal accepts that enrolment and completion of a course and subjects toward the MBA are indicative of a genuine student but that they are two of many considerations relevant to the assessment of whether the applicant, in regard to the current visa application, intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
   3. The above information indicates the applicant has been in Australia since January 2014 when he arrived on a subclass 573 student visa, holding student visas until he applied for the current student visa on 30 September 2019. The information indicates that the applicant has been in Australia for over 7 years claiming to be a genuine student and claiming to be in Australia to study and wishes to extend his stay in Australia by being granted a student visa for a further year, although he said he intends to finish the course in 8 months, increasing his stay in Australia to approximately 8 years. The evidence indicates he has not departed Australia since his arrival in 2014 and the Tribunal is of the view his extended length of stay in Australia is indicative of a person who does not intend to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal views as of concern his extended length of time in Australia and that despite claiming to be in Australia to study for 7 years he has only successfully completed one vocational course, a Diploma of Management, and 10 subjects towards a MBA.
   4. Further, as raised with him via the process outlined in s.359AA, the Tribunal views as of concern as to whether he is a genuine student his lack of enrolment in any registered course of study and therefore lack of any study from 27 November 2018 to 26 July 2021, a period of over 2 and a ½ years. This is particularly of concern as from the period 27 November 2018 until 30 September 2019 he was the holder of a student visa and not studying. The Tribunal is of the view his lack of enrolment and course completion since November 2018 is indicative of a person using the student visa process to maintain migration and not as a genuine student.
   5. While there may be good reasons for it, the Tribunal for the reasons below is not satisfied on the evidence before it that he has provided credible evidence as to his lack of course progression and lack of enrolment.
2. The Tribunal considered the applicant's explanations for not studying at [42]-[45], reasoning:
   1. The applicant has indicated he ceased studying the Master of Business Administration in November 2018 due to a dispute over fees he was required to pay. He has provided email evidence of his dispute with both Colleges over fees he is required to pay. Ultimately the evidence indicates that enrolment was cancelled in November 2018 for non-payment of fees. The applicant has indicated that his agent then told him following the refusal it was hard to obtain a COE. He said he was told by his agent once the Tribunal resolves the case he could obtain a COE. He also said the scenario for his family was not good and referred to a financial crisis. He said everything was going smoothly and then his parents incurred a huge financial loss and then his family suffered financial hardship due to Covid. He said slowly his family's financial position is improving and now his family is in a position to help him financially to complete the remaining subjects of his master's degree. He also said because of the refusal letter he went into depression.
   2. The Tribunal has difficulty accepting the applicant's reasons for non-study, particularly considering the length of time he has not been studying or enrolled being for over 2 ½ years from November 2018 to July 2021 when it is his claim he is in Australia to study. While there is evidence of a dispute over the amount of fees ultimately it appears the applicant was required to pay the fees by his College in November 2018 to continue, which he did not and the Tribunal is of the view if he was and is a genuine student in Australia he would have paid the fees and continued to study, not waited for over 2 ½ years to enrol in a further course just before the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal has considered his claim that he was unable to study due to his family's financial position which has now improved as reason for the 2 ½ delay in studying. However, this is in contrast to his evidence in his application for the visa dated 30 September 2019 where he indicated his family held a deposit of $30,000 in the State Bank of India to pay for his education.
   3. The Tribunal also does not accept his reasons for not studying was as a result of his agent telling him it was hard to obtain a COE and to await the outcome of the Tribunal before enrolling. This is especially so as from November 2018 to September 2019 he held a student visa where it is widely known and a condition of the visa that he has to be enrolled and studying and COEs can be obtained. The Tribunal notes he was also able to obtain a COE while the holder of bridging visa, which he ultimately did by obtaining a COE just before the Tribunal hearing. It questions his evidence as credible as to his claim he did not study due to the advice of his agent. The Tribunal is of the view if, as the applicant claims, he is in Australia to study he would not wait the outcome of the Tribunal hearing, before enrolling in a course and would only obtain a COE just before the Tribunal hearing, even if advised to do so by his agent.
3. The Tribunal then reasoned as follows at [46]-[49]:
   1. Further, undermining his claim he is a genuine student, and is studying for the reasons he claims and for any value to his future is his inconsistent evidence as to the course he wants to study and why he is studying in Australia and its relevance to his future career aim. At hearing the applicant indicated he is aiming to complete the Master of Business Administration. He said at hearing he wants to study this course as his father has a small construction business in India and his desire is to finish his MBA and work there and maybe also open a restaurant. He said and confirmed it was always his intention to work in his family construction business and open a restaurant on return to India. He said his father and brother and whole family work in this business and there is lots of scope for him to improve it. In further contrast in his statement submitted just prior to the hearing he said he now wishes to complete a Master of Business Administration from AIH and gave detailed reasons as to why he wishes to complete this course including to become a Database Administrator or Chief Information officer. When the Tribunal raised this as a concern and also questioned why in his statement of August 2021 he had not mentioned studying to work in the family construction firm, despite saying he had always had this aim, he said that the agent had told him to write a minimum amount of information and said he could explain at hearing to the Member. The Tribunal also raised as of concern that in his application for the visa in 2019 he had not referred to studying to work in the family construction business. He said when he applied his agent wrote it all and he was not aware of what was put in. The Tribunal does accept the applicant's responses are as a result of any advice of the agent to write a minimum amount or as it was written by the agent and he was not aware what he wrote. It is of the view if he was studying for his future employment he would be consistent as to this and the course he wishes to become enrolled in. The applicant's lack of consistency as to the course he wishes to undertake and why he is studying the course and its value to his future adds to the finding the applicant is not a genuine student studying for any future career aim and leads the Tribunal to find he is using the student visa program to maintain migration not as a genuine student.
   2. As to the applicant's immigration history, the Tribunal is of the view there is nothing which indicates that he does not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily, other than his extended time spent in Australia as raised above.
   3. In making the decision the Tribunal has considered all the evidence before it, including that he is currently enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, that he previously completed a Diploma of Management and part of an MBA, he has much stronger family ties in India than in Australia, his indication that he will return home on completion of the current course; however for the reasons outlined above does not accept he is undertaking the current study for the reasons he claims, but rather using it as a pathway to maintain residence in Australia.
4. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet cl 500.212(a). Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision (at [50]-[52]).

1. On 6 October 2021, the applicant applied for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. The matter remained in the central migration docket for some time before being allocated to my docket more recently and listed for hearing. The following grounds were stated in the application:
   1. The Second Respondent's decision was affected by jurisdictional error in that the applicant was denied procedural fairness under s 359 of the Migration Act 1958 and failed to take into account relevant considerations.

Particulars

1. The Applicant applied for a review on or about 28 November 2019. As there was no consistency in processing time of the review applications, there was no way that the Applicant knew of the likely time frame to have a hearing allocated by the Second Respondent.

2. The Second Respondent did not consider the Applicant's circumstances and did not provide any opportunity to submit further evidence pertaining to his case.

3. The Second Respondent in para 12 did not provide time to obtain the COE for Master of Business Information Systems from the Australian Institute of Higher Education despite the Applicant submitting that there was a delay from college due to COVID-19.

4. The Second Respondent in paras 18, 40 and 43 did not consider the Applicant's family's financial crisis and his depression for the failure to maintain his enrolment

5. The Second Respondent in para 23 made assumptions that the course of Master of Business Information Systems was drastically different to the previous Master of Business Administration course of which the Applicant completed 10 subjects.

6. The Second Respondent in para 38 failed to consider that the Applicant wanted to complete his master's degree in Australia as he had already completed 10 out of 16 subjects.

7. The Second Respondent in para 46 ignored the applicant's oral submission that his agent had submitted the statement for Genuine Temporary Entrant on his behalf and that the applicant was unaware of its contents.

8. The Second Respondent made jurisdictional error in that it denied the applicant procedural fairness and did not consider the Applicant's circumstances or provide him the opportunity to present further evidence.

1. Ground 1 contended that the applicant was denied procedural fairness under s 359 of the Act and that the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations. Similarly, ground 2 contended that the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness and did not consider his circumstances or provide him with the opportunity to present further evidence.
2. The Tribunal's procedural fairness obligations were limited under Division 5 of Part 5 of the Act: s 357A of the Act. Section 359 of the Act referred to the Tribunal's discretion to obtain or seek information. The Minister observed that the Tribunal exercised this discretion to request a copy of the Delegate's decision (CB 75-76). The Minister accepted that the timeframe provided for doing so did not accord with s 359B(2) of the Act, which required the period for provision of the information to be a prescribed period of 14 days: reg 4.17(4) of the Regulations.
3. However, as the Minister submitted, this error was of no consequence within the context of the review. This is because the applicant provided a copy of the Delegate's decision within the requested period anyway. It follows that this error would not provide a proper basis for setting aside the Tribunal's decision.
4. Particular (a) of ground 1 expressed that the applicant could not have known of the likely timeframe of a hearing before the Tribunal. However, as the Minister submitted, the hearing invitation sent by the Tribunal complied with the statutory requirements. In particular, the hearing invitation contained the requisite notice period of 14 days: s 360A(4) of the Act, reg 4.21(4) of the Regulations. The evidence does not demonstrate that the applicant raised with the Tribunal that he was unavailable to attend the scheduled hearing. It is not apparent how relevant error could be demonstrated on this basis.
5. Particular (b) contended that the applicant was not provided "any opportunity to submit further evidence pertaining to his case". Relatedly, particular (c) complained that the Tribunal did not provide the applicant time to obtain a Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) for a Master of Business Information Systems course despite the applicant submitting that there was a delay from the college due to COVID-19.
6. In relation to the COE, at [12] of the Tribunal's decision, the Tribunal set out the contents of a statement by the applicant dated 2 August 2021. This included the applicant's submission that he would provide a COE, within the context of a proposed Master of Business Information Systems course, in due course due to some delay from the education provider. However, by the time of the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant no longer submitted that he wanted to study a Master of Business Information Systems course. Instead, he submitted that he wanted to study a Master of Business Administration (MBA) (CB 152 [23]). As it is not apparent that the applicant was seeking, by the time of the hearing, further time to provide the COE in question, I do not see how the Tribunal could be said to have erred in failing to allow further time for this to occur.
7. At the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant appears to have asked the Tribunal whether there were any documents that the Tribunal wanted him to provide. In response, the Tribunal told the applicant that it was up to him to provide documents to support his claims and gave him until close of business on 10 August 2021 to provide any further documents (CB 152 [30]). Whilst this was the day after the hearing, the evidence before the Court does not demonstrate that the applicant sought further time. Documents were, in fact, submitted by the applicant after the Tribunal hearing (without any request for further time or indication of documents the applicant had wanted to provide, but been given insufficient time to provide). The Tribunal's decision was not made until 15 September 2021. In these circumstances, it is difficult to see how it could be demonstrated that the approach taken by the Tribunal is capable of meeting the high threshold for legal unreasonableness: see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [64]- [76] per Hayne J, Kiefel J (as her Honour then was) and Bell J and [113] per Gageler J (as his Honour was).
8. At the hearing before the Court, the applicant suggested that it was unreasonable for the Tribunal not to have advised him what documentary evidence to submit. However, as was submitted by the Minister, there was no obligation upon the Tribunal to do so. The Tribunal was not under any general duty to make inquiries: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZGUR [2011] HCA 1; (2011) 241 CLR 594 at [20], [22], [41] (French CJ and Kiefel J, as her Honour then was); Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI [2009] HCA 39; (2009) 259 ALR 429 at [1]- [25] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ). It is not apparent how the Tribunal's non-specification of the documents that the applicant ought to provide would be capable of demonstrating relevant error on the part of the Tribunal in the circumstances of this case.
9. The applicant also suggested that the Tribunal had not asked him about his reasons for pursuing a diploma. However, it is not clear how relevant error could be demonstrated on this basis. This is in circumstances where the applicant appears to have been asked by the Tribunal about his reasons for study in Australia and to have provided evidence in this regard throughout the process (at [4]-[12] and [16]-[31]).
10. Particular (b) also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant's circumstances. Relatedly, particular (d) contended that the Tribunal did not consider the financial circumstances of the applicant's family or his depression in relation to his failure to maintain enrolment. However, as the Minister submitted, the Tribunal considered the family's claimed financial difficulties at [12], [18], [42] and [43] of its decision. The Tribunal did not accept that they explained a 2½ year delay in studying from November 2018 to July 2021. The Tribunal considered that this was at odds with the applicant's visa application in September 2019, in which he had indicated that his family held a deposit of $30,000 in the State Bank of India to pay for his education.
11. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding depression at [17], [20], [42] and [45] of its decision. The Tribunal did not accept that they adequately explained the gap in the applicant's study. This was considering the lack of supporting evidence that had been provided. The Tribunal was of the view that if the applicant's condition was as serious as he had claimed, then he would have sought help for it. This was having regard to his claim that he was in Australia to study.
12. I accept the Minister's submission that these considerations were logically probative of the issues before the Tribunal. Evidence that the applicant had funds for study at a time during the period he claimed this was precluded by his family's financial position was capable of bearing upon the question of whether this claim should be accepted. The Tribunal was not obliged to accept that the applicant's mental health had prevented his study. This was in the absence of supporting evidence or an explanation, to the Tribunal's satisfaction, as to why the applicant had not sought help regarding his situation that was capable of providing such evidence. It has not been demonstrated that this reasoning was relevantly closed to the Tribunal. Although another decision maker may have reasoned differently, this does not provide sufficient basis to the Court for overturning the Tribunal's decision: see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [131] (Crennan and Bell JJ).
13. Particular (e) contended that the Tribunal at [23] of its decision made impermissible assumptions that the Master of Business Information Systems course was "drastically different" to the Master of Business Administration course of which the applicant had completed 10 subjects. However, the Tribunal did not find that the courses were "drastically different" in that paragraph. At [23], the Tribunal noted evidence given by the applicant regarding the change in study. At [46], the Tribunal raised concerns that inconsistent evidence had been given regarding the course that the applicant wanted to study and its relevance to his career goals. Even if there was some level of overlap between the courses, this would not mean that the Tribunal's concerns at [46] (which are set out above) were relevantly closed to the Tribunal.
14. Particular (f) contended that the Tribunal failed at [38] to consider "that the Applicant wanted to complete his master's degree in Australia as he had already completed 10 out of 16 subjects". Paragraph 38 is set out above. In that paragraph, the Tribunal did consider evidence indicating that the applicant had completed 10 units towards his MBA. Although the Tribunal accepted that the completion of these units was indicative of a genuine student, the Tribunal considered that other considerations were also relevant. Ultimately, the Tribunal considered that the evidence before it, overall, did not satisfy it that the genuine temporary entrant criterion was met. An argument that the applicant's completion of 10 units towards his MBA was not considered is therefore not sustainable. To the extent that this part of the ground disagrees with the Tribunal's decision, as explained at hearing, this Court has no power to overturn the Tribunal's decision by reference to disagreement alone. It has not been demonstrated that the Tribunal's reasoning was logically closed to the Tribunal.
15. Particular (g) contended that the Tribunal ignored at [46] of its decision the applicant's oral submission that his agent had submitted a Genuine Temporary Entrant statement on his behalf and that he had been unaware of its contents. Paragraph 46 is set out above. In that paragraph, the Tribunal did not "accept the applicant's responses are as a result of any advice of the agent to write a minimum amount or as it was written by the agent and he was not aware what he wrote" (the word "not" having been omitted on account of what appears to have been an immaterial typographical error). However, the Tribunal did not give clear reasons for its rejection of the applicant's explanations in the paragraph.
16. Inadequacy of reasons is not, of itself, demonstrative of jurisdictional error. However, inadequacies in reasoning can, in some cases, support a finding that evidence or claims were not considered, that there was a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, illogicality, unreasonableness, or some other form of error susceptible to judicial review: see for example Deb v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 3351 at [74] (Judge Nicholls), BZN19 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1000 at [21] (Judge Kaur-Bains) and the cases cited therein. On balance, I am not satisfied that the limitations of the Tribunal's reasons at [46] rise to such error in the present case.
17. Section 368(1) of the Act required the Tribunal to set out its findings on material questions of fact, but not upon each and every finding or conclusion of fact, or evaluation of evidence, in the course of the adjudicative process: Nguyen v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1095 at [71]- [75] (Derrington J); see also Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1; 74 ALJR 405 at [67] (McHugh J). The level of consideration required by a decision maker varies with the nature of the material in question: Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17; (2022) 275 CLR 582 at [25] (Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ).
18. The Tribunal's reasoning occurred within a context where the Tribunal had, earlier in its decision, rejected another explanation that had been given by the applicant about being told the wrong thing by an agent (at [44]). It occurred within a context where the Tribunal had given a number of reasons for doubting the credibility of the applicant's claim to intend genuinely to remain in Australia temporarily. Those reasons are set out above. Those reasons appear to have been logically probative of the factual issue that the Tribunal had to decide; namely, whether the applicant intended to remain in Australia temporarily.
19. Within this context, I do not find the most likely inference to be that the Tribunal failed to consider, in the requisite sense, the applicant's explanations that his inconsistent expressions of plans were explicable by a lack of awareness of the contents of his visa application, or because he had been told to limit what he wrote in a subsequent statement by an agent. Rather, I find the more likely inference to be that the Tribunal rejected these explanations because it found them to be inadequate explanations for the variations in evidence that it had identified. I accept the Minister's submission that it was open to the Tribunal to have been concerned by the apparent variations in the applicant's plans, notwithstanding the explanations that the applicant had given. It has not been demonstrated that it was closed to the Tribunal to have considered, as it appears to have done at [46], that it would have expected more consistent evidence to have been given if the applicant had been studying for the reasons claimed (whether an agent had been involved, or otherwise).
20. In written submissions, the applicant suggested that the Tribunal's reasoning that he would have been consistent if his plans were genuine was illogical, because:

(a) consistency is not the sole test of genuineness;

(b) Direction No. 69 required a "holistic assessment"; and

(c) the Tribunal failed to connect his explanation with its adverse conclusion.

1. The Tribunal did not find that consistency in the applicant's evidence was the "sole test of genuineness". Rather, the Tribunal's conclusion was the product of its weighing of a number of considerations, as set out above. For the reasons given below, I am not persuaded that this weighing of evidence was logically closed to the Tribunal. It has not been explained how this manner of reasoning involved other than a "holistic assessment" of considerations set out in Direction No. 69. Nor has it been explained how the Tribunal failed to "connect [the applicant's] explanation with its adverse conclusion". In coming to its adverse conclusion, the Tribunal did not accept the sufficiency of the applicant's explanation.
2. Having regard to the above, I have not been persuaded to find that the Tribunal's decision was affected by relevant error by reference to the grounds stated in the application to this Court.

Additional grounds raised in written submissions

1. In written submissions, the applicant additionally complained that the Tribunal "failed to weigh... properly" his evidence regarding disputes over tuition fees, his family's financial hardship (and the impact of COVID-19) and/or his family ties to India. He contended that the Tribunal misapplied Direction No. 69 by giving "disproportionate weight" to the applicant's length of stay in Australia and the gap in his study. He contended that the Tribunal failed to balance these considerations against evidence that he had completed a Diploma of Management, substantial MBA course work and was enrolled at the time of decision.
2. I accept the Minister's submission that this complaint on the part of the applicant effectively seeks merits review - i.e. for the Court to impose its own view upon how these considerations ought to be weighed. This Court has no power to do so.
3. Although relevant error might be demonstrated by giving illogical or irrational weight to a particular consideration, or otherwise reasoning in a manner that was not logically open, I am not persuaded that this has been demonstrated in the present case.
4. The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding his disputes over tuition fees, his family's financial circumstances and his family ties to India at [16]-[18], [37] and [42]-[43] of its decision. In relation to the dispute over fees and his family's financial circumstances (including by reference to COVID-19), the Tribunal did not accept that these matters sufficiently explained the applicant's reasons for not studying over a 2½ year period. Whilst the Tribunal accepted that there was a dispute over fees, the Tribunal considered that if the applicant were a genuine student, he would have paid the fees and continued to study rather than waiting over 2½ years before enrolling just prior to the Tribunal hearing (at [43]). It has not been demonstrated that this path of reasoning was logically closed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not obliged to consider that the dispute over fees sufficiently explained the lengthy gap in study that it was considering. The Tribunal's reasoning regarding the claimed financial circumstances of the applicant's family is considered above. For the reasons given above, it was open to the Tribunal not to have been satisfied by the applicant's evidence in this regard for the reasons that it gave.
5. In relation to the applicant's family ties, the Tribunal accepted that his parents and siblings were in India. The Tribunal accepted that this circumstance was "indicative of a person who is only a temporary entrant and wishes to return to their home country" (at [37]). The Tribunal also accepted that the applicant was enrolled at the time of its decision, had completed a Diploma of Management and part of an MBA. The Tribunal accepted that enrolment and completion of a course and subjects towards the MBA were "indicative of a genuine student" but found that they were "two of many considerations relevant to the assessment of whether the applicant, in regard to the current visa application, intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily" (at [38]).
6. The Tribunal weighed these considerations against other considerations, including the length of the applicant's stay in Australia (for over 7 years), the gap in the applicant's study (of over 2½ years) and its concerns regarding the inconsistent evidence the applicant had given regarding the relevance of his proposed course to his future (at [39]-[49]). These matters were, at least potentially, logically probative of the question of whether the applicant met cl 500.212(a). It is not apparent how the Tribunal could be said to have placed irrational or illogical weight upon these considerations, or upon the considerations that it weighed in the applicant's favour. The Tribunal was not obliged to accept that the applicant genuinely intended to remain in Australia temporarily.
7. I am therefore not persuaded that relevant error has been demonstrated through the additional matters raised in the applicant's written submissions.

1. For the above reasons, I am not persuaded that the Tribunal's decision was affected by the type of error that would justify this Court setting it aside. It follows that the application before the Court must be dismissed.
2. I will hear from the parties in relation to costs.

I certify that the preceding forty-five (45) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Laing.