Yadav v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 473

Recent amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

1. The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the "Act") was amended on 14 October 2024 following the commencement of the Administrative Review Tribunal (the "ART") (and by virtue of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the "Transitional Act")).
2. This judgment relates to a decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the "Tribunal"). That decision is dated 7 October 2021 and thus predates those amendments. Unless otherwise stated, any reference to the Act in this judgment is a reference to the Act as was in force as at the date of the Tribunal's decision (or as at the date of any relevant matter referenced in this judgment).
3. At the time that the application for judicial review was filed (being on 8 November 2021), the Tribunal was listed as the second respondent in this matter. Item 10 in Schedule 16 of the Transitional Act provides that the ART is (after the transition time) substituted for the Tribunal as a party to any proceeding pending in any Court or Tribunal immediately before the transition time. Item 25 of the Transitional Act relates to any proceeding in a Court that is not finalised before the transition time and that relates to a decision made, or other thing done, by the Tribunal. After the transition time, a proceeding will continue in accordance with the new law. By continuing with a proceeding, anything the Court could have done in relation to the Tribunal before the transition time can now be done in relation to the ART.
4. In the circumstances, this Court made an order (at the hearing of this matter on 23 March 2026) substituting the ART as the second respondent in this proceeding.

1. The applicant is a citizen of Nepal (Court Book ("CB") 2-4 & 17). He arrived in Australia in June 2019 as the holder of a tourist visa (CB 9).
2. On 2 September 2019, the applicant applied for a Student (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa (the "visa") (CB 1-16). The applicant claimed that he had applied for that visa to enable him to study a Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology, a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis and a Diploma of Automotive Technology at Macallan College (CB 1, 9 & 18-40). With his visa application, the applicant provided a copy of his passport (CB 17), a statement addressing the genuine temporary entrant criterion (the "GTE statement") (CB 18-19), documentation from Macallan College regarding the applicant's proposed studies (CB 20-40) and evidence of his overseas student health cover (CB 41).
3. The applicant's GTE statement relevantly provided as follows:

(a) building and fixing cars had always been the applicant's passion but there were no "proper schools" in Nepal to teach aspiring mechanics (CB 18);

(b) he came to Australia with his mother as the holder of a tourist visa to visit his brother (CB 18);

(c) he spoke to his brother about his passion for cars and his brother suggested that he study to learn more about them (CB 18);

(d) the applicant had enough savings in Nepal to fund his study and his brother (who lives in Australia) would be "looking after the study expenses" for him (CB 19); and

(e) he wished to develop skills in the automotive industry (to pair with his existing business knowledge obtained through the completion of a Bachelor of Business in Nepal) and would "be able to run a thriving and substantial business in Nepal" (CB 19).

1. The applicant subsequently provided additional supporting documents to the Department of Home Affairs, including further documentation regarding his health cover (CB 45-46) and documentation regarding his English language proficiency (CB 47-48).
2. On 22 January 2020, a delegate of the first respondent (the "Minister") refused to grant the applicant the visa (CB 54-58). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily (CB 57).
3. On 4 February 2020, the applicant sought review of the delegate's decision by the Tribunal (CB 59-60).
4. On 20 August 2021, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide information (pursuant to s 359 of the Act) in support of his review application (by no later than 3 September 2021) by completing a "Request for Student Visa Information" form (the "questionnaire") (CB 84-91). In particular, the Tribunal's invitation letter stated (CB 85):

As you applied for the visa on the basis of undertaking a course of study in Australia, it is a requirement of the visa for you to be:

• enrolled in a registered course of study; and

• a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.

Accordingly, you will need to provide sufficient information to satisfy us that you meet both of these visa requirements and you are now invited to give, in writing, all relevant information about the course(s) of study you are undertaking and your entry and stay in Australia as a student. Specific details about the information requested is set out in the Request for Student Visa Information form which you can access by clicking on the link below. The information requested may be given by completing the online form and clicking 'Submit' on the Declaration page.

1. On 3 September 2021, the applicant responded to the request be returning the completed questionnaire to the Tribunal (CB 92-101). In that questionnaire, the applicant claimed to have started (but not completed) the Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology and, after not being enrolled in a course of study from August 2020 to September 2021, he enrolled in a Graduate Diploma of Management at Campbell Institute in September 2021 (CB 96-97). The applicant also provided additional supporting documents to the Tribunal, including an Overseas Student Confirmation of Enrolment form relating to the Graduate Diploma of Management (CB 102-118).
2. On 20 September 2021, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing before it, scheduled to take place on 6 October 2021 (by telephone) (CB 119-127).
3. On 6 October 2021, the applicant appeared at the Tribunal hearing (by telephone) to give evidence and present arguments in relation to his visa application (CB 133-135). He was assisted at that hearing by a Nepalese interpreter (CB 133).
4. On 7 October 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision refusing to grant the applicant the visa (CB 138-150).
5. On 8 November 2021, the applicant applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. The applicant provided an affidavit in support of that application (affirmed by him on 8 November 2021) (the "applicant's affidavit"). The applicant's affidavit annexed a copy of the Tribunal's decision together with the associated notification letter and an information sheet, the applicant's passport and the delegate's decision and related notification letter.

1. The application for judicial review was brought pursuant to s 476 of the Act. To obtain assistance from this Court, the applicant must show that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. It is thus helpful to outline the Tribunal's decision in some detail.
2. The Tribunal's decision is 13 pages long and spans 29 paragraphs (CB 138-150). The final six pages include a copy of Ministerial Direction Number 69 (the "Direction") (CB 145-150).
3. The Tribunal began by identifying that the applicant had applied for the visa on 2 September 2019 and that, on 22 January 2020, a delegate of the Minister had refused to grant the applicant that visa because they found that the applicant did not intend to stay in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal also confirmed that the applicant sought review of the delegate's decision by the Tribunal on 4 February 2020 (at [1]-[4]).
4. The Tribunal acknowledged that approximately 20 months had elapsed since the making of the delegate's decision and that in that time, the applicant's personal circumstances may have changed. The Tribunal noted it had given the applicant an opportunity "to provide updated and further information" (pursuant to s 359 of the Act). The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant had appeared at a hearing before it (by telephone) on 6 October 2021 to give evidence and present arguments (with the assistance of a Nepalese interpreter) (at [5]-[6]).
5. The Tribunal noted that it was for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that he met the requirements for the grant of the visa and that the Tribunal was "not required to make the applicant's case" for him. The Tribunal confirmed that it had regard to the applicant's oral evidence, written materials provided by him and other relevant documents on the Departmental and Tribunal files (at [7]-[9]).
6. The Tribunal then set out the criteria for the grant of the visa, noting that the requirements set out in cll 500.211 to 500.218 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the "Regulations") needed to be satisfied. The Tribunal detailed that cl 500.212 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations required that the "applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily". The Tribunal also explained that in making that determination, the Tribunal would have regard to a number of factors set out in the Direction (made pursuant to s 499 of the Act). The Tribunal noted that those factors were not to be used as a checklist but were instead intended to guide decision makers when considering an applicant's circumstances as a whole (at [10]-[14]).
7. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant's evidence that after his visa application was refused in early 2020, he ceased his study as he was not finding the course useful and was depressed because of that visa refusal. The Tribunal noted there was no medical or psychological evidence to corroborate the applicant's claim to have suffered from depression and explained that the applicant had remained in Australia "on a bridging visa without progressing his study at all" (at [16]).
8. The Tribunal explained that an "effective way for an applicant to demonstrate ... a genuine desire to study in Australia" while awaiting a Tribunal review was to "take positive steps towards achieving the educational qualification they had proposed in their [visa] application". Noting that there was no such evidence in this case, the Tribunal found that the applicant's behaviour was inconsistent with that "expected of a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student in Australia" and that it appeared that the applicant was "using the student visa programme to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme" (at [17]).
9. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant's enrolment in a Graduate Diploma of Management with course dates from September 2021 to September 2023 and was "troubled by the timing and significant change in study pathway in this regard", noting that the applicant had enrolled in that course shortly after receiving the Tribunal's invitation letter (sent pursuant to s 359 of the Act) (at [18]).
10. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's evidence that upon completion of his studies, he would return to his home country to work as a Business Development Manager in a bank. The Tribunal did not consider that the applicant's economic circumstances in Australia were acting as a significant incentive for him to remain and accepted that the applicant had provided reasonable reasons for undertaking his studies in Australia (at [19]-[21]).
11. Noting that the applicant was living with his brother (who is a permanent resident in Australia), the Tribunal was "concerned that the applicant's familial presence onshore may be acting as a strong incentive for him to remain" in Australia but did not form any firm conclusions in that regard (at [22]).
12. The Tribunal explained that the applicant's mother and another brother lived in Nepal and the applicant spoke with them once a week. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had ties to Nepal which may serve as an incentive for him to return but did not consider the evidence supported a finding that the ties acted as a significant incentive for him to return. The Tribunal was puzzled by applicants who arrived on visitor visas and then made sudden changes to their plans shortly after arriving and found that such a significant change would include "a greater level of planning and preparation before arriving in Australia". The Tribunal considered that this raised concerns about the applicant's "true intentions in seeking a student visa" (at [23]-[25]).
13. Having had regard to the evidence and the applicant's circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal was concerned that the applicant was motivated by factors other than study and was using the student visa program as a means of maintaining residence in Australia. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily and, as such, found that he did not meet the requirements for the grant of the visa (as set out in cl 500.212 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations) (at [26]-[28]).
14. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision refusing to grant the applicant the visa (at [29]).

1. The application for judicial review (filed by the applicant on 8 November 2021) contains three "grounds of review", as follows (without alteration):
   1. Please see Annex 1, submission of my grounds of appeal in my Affidavit.
   2. Documents attached which are refusal letter from Department of Home Affairs as well as decision record from AAT along with my Passport.
   3. Department and AAT have ignored the fact that I am progressing well with my studies and related my brother in Australia as not having any incentive to go back to Nepal as well as since I come here on Tourist visa so my intention of studies doesn't seem genuine? Detailed affidavit attached here with.
2. The applicant also filed an affidavit in support of his review application. The applicant's affidavit included a claim that might be considered a further ground of review. Relevantly, that affidavit stated:
   1. I want FCC to look into this judicial error of not able to provide me with enough time to support my claim at first go which has resulted in this condition.
3. On 23 December 2025, procedural orders were made by a Judge of this Court giving the applicant an opportunity to file an amended application, any further evidence and written submissions. Unfortunately, no further materials were filed by or on behalf of the applicant.
4. The applicant appeared before this Court by telephone on 23 March 2026. He did so without legal representation but with the assistance of a Nepalese interpreter. Mr Thomas Pattinson from Mills Oakley appeared on behalf of the Minister by telephone. The Court asked the applicant to confirm that he had received copies of the CB and the Minister's written submissions.
5. The materials before the Court include the application for judicial review and the applicant's affidavit, both filed by the applicant on 8 November 2021 (the applicant's affidavit being taken as read and in evidence at the hearing on 23 March 2026), a CB numbering 153 pages (marked as Exhibit 1 at the hearing of this matter), written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 10 March 2026 and the affidavit of service of Ms Klara Zecevic affirmed and filed on 13 March 2026 (also taken as read and in evidence at the hearing of this matter).
6. Noting that the applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave him the opportunity to explain orally what he thought the Tribunal "did wrong". This is now the standard procedure in this Court following the decisions in Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600 at [7] and BKT17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 384.
7. To assist the applicant, the Court explained to him that the only issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error. It was stressed that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. It was also explained that for migration decisions of this sort, they most commonly include, but are not limited to, the following categories:

(a) where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question: Craig v State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 ("Craig") at 198;

(b) where the decision-maker ignores relevant material: Craig at 198;

(c) where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material: Craig at 198;

(d) where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures: SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) HCA 24; (2005) 228 CLR 294 at [207]- [208];

(e) where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias: SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 at [2]; and

(f) where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable: Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3 at [33]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 ("Li") at [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; (2014) 231 FCR 437 at [44].

1. It was also explained that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal's decision or grant the applicant the visa that he seeks. Rather, the role of the Court is restricted to determining if the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at the decision it arrived at: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 ("Wu Shan Liang").
2. Against this background, the applicant told the Court that he "should be given one last opportunity to study for [his] future" and that "in this country, everyone is getting an opportunity and [the applicant] should get the same opportunity". The applicant also told the Court that once his visa was refused, he was not able to focus on his studies.
3. Unfortunately, the applicant's comments do not raise any issue of the sort that this Court can address. The Court notes, however, that it has a duty to the applicant as an unrepresented litigant. In fulfilling that duty, the Court will review the Tribunal's decision itself and remain astute and alert to the possibility of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision: MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1391.

1. As outlined above, ground one relevantly provides:
   1. Please see Annex 1, submission of my grounds of appeal in my Affidavit.
2. The applicant's affidavit relevantly states:
   1. I want FCC to look into this judicial error of not able to provide me with enough time to support my claim at first go which has resulted in this condition.
3. Essentially, the applicant claims that the Tribunal did not allow him sufficient time to provide information or evidence in support of his review application. The Court disagrees for the reasons that follow.
4. In this matter, the applicant sought review of the delegate's decision by the Tribunal on 4 February 2020 (CB 59-60).
5. On 6 February 2020, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of that application (CB 77-79). That acknowledgement letter relevantly stated (emphasis added) (CB 78):

It is important that you:

• tell us immediately if you change your contact details (such as your residential address, mailing address, telephone number, fax number or email address). If you have a representative or authorised recipient, it is also important that you inform them of any change in your contact details. If you do not, you might not receive an invitation to a hearing or other important information and your case may be decided without further notice;

• tell us immediately if your personal circumstances change and this is relevant to the review of the decision;

• use your case number [applicant's case number omitted] when you contact us.

If you wish to provide material or written arguments for us to consider, you should do so as soon as possible.

1. Attached to that acknowledgement letter was an information sheet providing the applicant with information about the conduct of the Tribunal's review (CB 80-83). That information sheet relevantly provided (CB 81-82):

Can I provide further information or evidence?

If you have not already provided a copy of the department's decision, or any other material which you believe supports your application, including a statement explaining why you disagree with the department's decision, please do so as soon as possible.

You can lodge forms, documents and submissions through the online lodgement facility if you are a registered user, or by email, in person, by post, or by fax. Wherever possible, we would prefer if this material is sent electronically. There is no requirement for a copy of documents that have been sent electronically to also be sent by post, unless you are submitting original documents or certified copies of documents (such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, qualifications). If you provide documents in person please also have available a copy of those documents for us.

You should provide an English translation by an accredited translator of any documents written in other languages. Please send both the documents and the translations to us.

1. The applicant was thus on notice from the date of the Tribunal's letter (being 6 February 2020) that he could provide further information or materials to the Tribunal in support of his review application.
2. On 20 August 2021, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide information in support of his review application (pursuant to s 359 of the Act) by completing a questionnaire (CB 84-91). In particular, the Tribunal's invitation letter stated (CB 85):

As you applied for the visa on the basis of undertaking a course of study in Australia, it is a requirement of the visa for you to be:

• enrolled in a registered course of study; and

• a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.

Accordingly, you will need to provide sufficient information to satisfy us that you meet both of these visa requirements and you are now invited to give, in writing, all relevant information about the course(s) of study you are undertaking and your entry and stay in Australia as a student. Specific details about the information requested is set out in the Request for Student Visa Information form which you can access by clicking on the link below. The information requested may be given by completing the online form and clicking 'Submit' on the Declaration page.

1. On 3 September 2021, the applicant responded to the request by returning the completed questionnaire to the Tribunal (CB 92-101). He also provided additional supporting documents to the Tribunal (CB 102-118).
2. On 20 September 2021, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing before it, scheduled to take place on 6 October 2021 (by telephone) (CB 119-127). That invitation letter also asked the applicant to provide additional information in support of his review application. Relevantly, the Tribunal's hearing invitation letter stated (CB 121):

Please provide at least 7 days before the hearing all documents you intend to rely on to establish that you meet the criteria for the visa. The decision made by the department to refuse to grant a visa should set out the reasons why you did not meet the criteria, and you should have regard to these, and any changes in your circumstances, in providing documents and preparing for the hearing. Any documents or written arguments sent to us should be in English and if not then accompanied by a translation from a NAATI accredited translator.

In addition, please provide the following information at least 7 days before the hearing date so that a decision can be made as quickly as possible:

1. A copy of your current Certificate of Enrolment (COE) or other document/s that show you are currently enrolled in a course of study as defined in cl 500.111 and as required by cl 500.211(a) of schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) for the grant of the visa.

2. Documents that show your past studies in Australia, including copies of all your attendance certificates, academic transcripts and certificates of completion as well as documents evidencing any work related to past or intended studies in Australia. Please note, if you have recently provided these documents to the Tribunal, there is no need to submit them again, but please ensure that you have provided us with the most up-to-date information.

We may assess whether you are a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (which was the reason for the delegate's decision). Relevant to this requirement is a direction from the Minister known as Direction No. 69, a copy of which is attached.

We may also assess whether you are enrolled in a registered course of study. Please note that not being enrolled in a registered course of study may be a reason, or a part of the reason, for the Tribunal affirming the decision under review, even if this is not the same criteria or issue considered by the delegate.

1. On 6 October 2021, the applicant appeared at the Tribunal hearing by telephone to give evidence and present arguments in relation to his visa application (CB 133-135).
2. As can be seen from the timeline above, the applicant had some 20 months to provide additional information or evidence to the Tribunal and the Tribunal gave the applicant multiple prompts and opportunities during that period to do so.
3. Further, as correctly submitted by the Minister (at [30]-[31] in written submissions filed on behalf of the Minister on 10 March 2026), there is no evidence before the Court to suggest that the applicant ever requested additional time to provide further information to the Tribunal or that he was not afforded an opportunity to properly present his case.
4. The Court also notes that the Tribunal was not required to delay its decision or to afford the applicant every opportunity to present his best possible case or to improve upon the evidence he had provided: JUN24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1300 (citing Li at [82]).
5. The Court is satisfied that the applicant was given adequate opportunity to make his case to the Tribunal.
6. No jurisdictional error arises in this regard.

1. Ground two relevantly provides as follows:
   1. Documents attached which are refusal letter from Department of Home Affairs as well as decision record from AAT along with my Passport.
2. This ground simply references materials that the applicant provided with his judicial review application and does not raise an error of the sort this Court can assist with.

1. Ground three relevantly states:
   1. Department and AAT have ignored the fact that I am progressing well with my studies and related my brother in Australia as not having any incentive to go back to Nepal as well as since I come here on Tourist visa so my intention of studies doesn't seem genuine? Detailed affidavit attached here with.
2. By this ground, the applicant claims that the Tribunal failed to consider that he was "progressing well with [his] studies" and that he had an "incentive to go back to Nepal".
3. This ground fails on a factual level.
4. The Tribunal considered the applicant's history of study, study progress and his changed enrolment in its written reasons, as follows:
   1. The applicant's application which is the subject of this review was to undertake Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology, a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis and a Diploma of Automotive Technology which had a cumulative completion date in October 2022. Due to delays in this matter coming before the Tribunal, the applicant ought now to only have one year left in his proposed study. Instead, the applicant has remained onshore on a bridging visa without progressing his study at all, despite claiming to wish to remain onshore on the basis of a student visa. The applicant gave evidence at hearing that after his student visa application was refused in early 2020, he was not able to focus and ceased his study. He has made submissions that he was not finding the course useful and was very depressed because of the visa refusal. There is no medical or psychological evidence before the Tribunal to corroborate this latter submission.
   2. A particularly effective way for an applicant to demonstrate that they hold a genuine desire to study in Australia, while awaiting a review hearing following an initial student visa refusal, is to take positive steps towards achieving the educational qualification they had proposed in their original application. That is to say, an applicant should progress with their proposed course of study in Australia notwithstanding that their visa application has been refused. In doing so, by the time the application on review proceeds to a hearing before the Tribunal, an applicant will be a position to produce compelling evidence at the hearing that shows they are a genuine applicant for a student visa. In this case, there is no such evidence. Even allowing for the applicant's explanations in the immediately preceding paragraph, the Tribunal does not consider this to be the kind of behaviour that is consistent with that expected of a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student in Australia. Instead, the applicant has remained in Australia, not studying, whilst claiming he wishes to remain onshore as a genuine student. This evidence raises concerns for the Tribunal about the true nature of the applicant's intentions in applying for the student visa and, when taken as a whole with the evidence outlined in this decision, appears to constitute evidence that the applicant is using the student visa programme to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme.
   3. On 26 August 2021, shortly after receiving the s359(2) letter, the applicant enrolled in an entirely new course - a Graduate Diploma of Management with course dates from September 2021-September 2023. The Tribunal is troubled by the timing and significant change in study pathway in this regard. The applicant gave evidence at hearing that he initially proposed automotive courses because in Nepal there are lots of vehicles but after his refusal he did not want to do that course and instead elected for the Graduate Diploma in Management which is closer to his previous field of education and career. The Tribunal allows for reasonable changes to study and career pathways and accepts that this new proposed study is more consistent with the applicant's current level of education. However, the timing of the applicant's enrolment in this course still raises concerns for the Tribunal about the true nature of the applicant's intentions.
5. As correctly submitted by the Minister, the passages above clearly indicate that the Tribunal considered the applicant's study history but found that his lack of academic progress during the time between the delegate's decision and the Tribunal review application suggested that the applicant was using the student visa programme to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme.
6. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had an incentive to return to Nepal, as follows:
   1. The applicant's mother and other brother live in Nepal and he speaks to them once a week. He has not travelled home to Nepal since his arrival but the Tribunal notes that the COVID19 Pandemic and associated travel restrictions have made such travel virtually impossible since early 2020. He states he has a big family in Nepal with lots of relatives and friends. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has ties to Nepal which may serve as an incentive for him to return but does not consider the evidence supports a finding that those ties are acting as a significant incentive for him to return.
7. As can be seen from the excerpt above, the Tribunal had regard to the applicant's ties to Nepal and accepted that they may serve as an incentive to return. However, the Tribunal did not consider that the evidence before it demonstrated that they would act as a significant incentive for him to return.
8. The Court is satisfied that the Tribunal considered the applicant's study progress and his incentives to return to Nepal and that the Tribunal's findings in relation to both issues were open to it on the evidence before it.
9. The applicant's concerns otherwise invite the Court to engage in impermissible merits review: Wu Shan Liang at 272.
10. No jurisdictional error arises in relation to ground three.

1. For the reasons outlined above, the applicant's judicial review application and the applicant's affidavit (both filed in this Court on 8 November 2021) have failed to identify any jurisdictional error.
2. The Court has also been unable to identify any error on the part of the Tribunal.
3. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

I certify that the preceding seventy-one (71) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Kendall.