Yasin v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1659

1. The applicant by his originating application lodged 21 January 2021 (application) sought orders against the first respondent, the (then) Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (now Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Minister)) and the second respondent, the (then) Administrative Appeals Tribunal (now Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal)) under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) in respect of the decision of the Tribunal to affirm a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse the applicant a student visa.
2. The application to invoke the Court's jurisdiction has been made within the time specified in s 477(1) of the Act.
3. At the hearing of the application on 16 June 2025, the applicant proceeded on grounds in an amended application filed 6 May 2025 (the amended application).
4. The applicant essentially contends that the Tribunal erred by proceeding to determine his application in December 2020, when the applicant had requested the Tribunal allow him until the following March to obtain evidence of his enrolment.
5. In order for the Court to grant the relief sought by the applicant, the Court is required to be satisfied that the Tribunal's decision involved jurisdictional error.
6. For reasons that follow, the Tribunal's decision did not involve jurisdictional error, and the application must be dismissed.

1. The Court received into evidence, without objection, an affidavit of the applicant dated 20 January 2021 which annexed a copy of the Tribunal's written record of its decision and set out the history of the applicant's engagement by email with the Tribunal on 17 December 2020.
2. The Court also received into evidence a further affidavit of the applicant made on 29 April 2025, which set out some of the applicant's history of study in Australia. The first respondent objected to the receipt into evidence of annexures D, E, F, G, and H to that affidavit on the basis of relevance as they were not before the Tribunal. The applicant contended that they were relevant to the exercise by the Court of any discretion to grant relief. Although that material did not appear immediately relevant, I determined to admit them provisionally, subject to the applicant demonstrating their relevance.
3. The Court also received into evidence a court book prepared by the first respondent in the customary way which contained documents from the Department of Home Affairs and the Tribunal concerning the applicant's visa application and application for review.

1. The criteria for the grant of the student visa sought by the applicant were set out in sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations). The applicant was required to satisfy a number of criteria, including the primary criteria, one of which was contained in cl 500.211, which provided, relevantly, as follows:

500.211

One of the following applies:

(a) the applicant is enrolled in a course of study;

(b) ...

(c) ...

(d) ...

1. The terms "course of study", and "higher education course" were defined in cl 500.111 of sch 2 of the Regulations as follows:

500.111

In this Part:

course of study means the following:

(a) in relation to a secondary exchange student - a full-time course of study under a secondary school student exchange program administered by a State or Territory education authority;

(b) in relation to a Foreign Affairs student - either:

(i) a full-time course of study or training under a scholarship scheme approved by the Foreign Minister; or

(ii) a full-time course of study or training under a training program approved by the Foreign Minister;

(c) in relation to a Defence Student - either:

(i) a full-time course of study or training under a scholarship scheme approved by the Defence Minister; or

(ii) a full-time course of study or training under a training program approved by the Defence Minister;

(d) in any other case - a full-time registered course.

1. The term "registered course" was defined in reg 1.03 of the Regulations as follows:

registered course means a course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, to provide the course to overseas students.

1. The decision of the delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant the student visa was a "Part 5-reviewable decision" within the meaning of s 338 of the Act. As such, the provisions in Part 5 of the Act governed the Tribunal's review of that decision.
2. Amongst the provisions in Part 5 is s 363. It provides as follows:

363 Powers of the Tribunal etc.

(1) For the purpose of the review of a decision, the Tribunal may:

(a) take evidence on oath or affirmation;

(b) adjourn the review from time to time;

(c) subject to section 378, give information to the applicant and to the Secretary; or

(d) require the Secretary to arrange for the making of any investigation, or any medical examination, that the Tribunal thinks necessary with respect to the review, and to give to the Tribunal a report of that investigation or examination.

(2) The Tribunal may combine the reviews of 2 or more Part 5-reviewable decisions made in respect of the same person.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), the Tribunal may, for the purposes of a review:

(a) summon a person to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence;

(b) summon a person to produce to the Tribunal the documents or things referred to in the summons;

(c) require a person appearing before the Tribunal to give evidence either to take an oath or to make an affirmation; and

(d) administer an oath or affirmation to a person so appearing.

(4) The Tribunal must not, for the purposes of a review that is being conducted in Australia, summon a person under paragraph (3)(a) or (b) unless the person is in Australia.

1. The Court's role is to review the Tribunal's exercise of power for jurisdictional error.
2. Jurisdictional error describes a failure, by a person or body given authority under a statute to exercise a power, to comply with a condition attaching to the exercise of a statutory power, where that failure is of such a character as to warrant the conclusion that the purported decision or purported exercise of power lacks the authority of the statute. The categories of jurisdictional error are not closed. Jurisdictional error by a statutory decision-maker may result where the decision-maker misunderstands the applicable law; asks the wrong question; exceeds the bounds of reasonableness; identifies a wrong issue; ignores relevant material; relies on irrelevant material; fails to observe some applicable requirement of procedural fairness; and in some cases, makes an erroneous finding or reaches a mistaken conclusion; LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 280 CLR 321; [2024] HCA 12 at [2]- [3].
3. In most cases an error will be jurisdictional in character only where it is material, in the sense that there is a realistic possibility that the decision could have been different if the error had not occurred: ibid [7].
4. The amended application contains the following ground (italics in the original):
   1. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error at [11] and at (12) in its decision dated 22 December 2020 in failing not to exercise its discretion in allowing the applicant to obtain relevant evidence in relation enrolment following a request from the applicant. The Tribunal says at 11 of the decision:

a) "In these circumstances, for the reasons set out in this decision record above, the Tribunal considers that the review applicant has had a fair opportunity to provide relevant information. " > > b) Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided not to exercise its discretion under s.363(1)(b) of the Act to adjourn the review any further to allow the review applicant more time. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to proceed to make a decision having regard to the information it has before it, including the information previously provided by the review applicant to the Department.

Particulars

a) The applicant sent two emails to the Tribunal

The first email on 17 December 2020 stated the following:

Dear Joshua M

I am replying in response to your email regarding a current electronic confirmation of enrolment. I am going to get one but would you please allow me some time till 15 March , because new semester in many institutes starting from March. As time of getting a confirmation of enrolment varies with institutes, I will be needed more time. Before 15 March I will be able to get Electronic confirmation of enrolment and can email to you thanks.

b) The second email on 18 December 2020 stated the following

Dear Joshua M

Hi I am writing in response to your email in which you requested me to comment on my current enrolment. I am not currently enrolled in any course because I am not sure whether I will be granted visa or not. However, I have the intention to get COE for graduate certificate and diploma in TESOL as opposed to certificate 4 for which my visa was rejected.

I was waiting for your decision so that I can enrol in the course. Because at one occasion in the past I paid fees to University for the course , while I was waiting for my 485 visa and all fees wasted because I got my TR visa and study was not requirement . Therefore keeping in mind the past event was waiting reply from Review tribunal, then enrol

Thanks farrakh Yasin

1. The applicant essentially contends that the Tribunal erred by unreasonably exercising the discretion it had, under s 363 of the Act, to adjourn its review. The principles governing the consideration of that ground are set out below.
2. In Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18 (Li), the High Court considered the Tribunal's power under s 363 in a matter where the Tribunal had refused the visa applicant an adjournment for the purpose of obtaining the results of a review of an assessment of her skills. Although the visa applicant had not nominated a time by which that assessment would be available, a favourable assessment of those skills was a criterion for the grant of the visa the applicant sought, and the process of assessment was underway at the time the adjournment was sought. The High Court considered the limits on the exercise of that discretion.
3. French CJ said, at [26]:

The rationality required by "the rules of reason" is an essential element of lawfulness in decision-making. A decision made for a purpose not authorised by statute, or by reference to considerations irrelevant to the statutory purpose or beyond its scope, or in disregard of mandatory relevant considerations, is beyond power. It falls outside the framework of rationality provided by the statute. To that framework, defined by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute conferring the discretion, there may be added specific requirements of a procedural or substantive character. They may be express statutory conditions or, in the case of the requirements of procedural fairness, implied conditions (88). Vitiating unreasonableness may be characterised in more than one way susceptible of judicial review. A decision affected by actual bias may lead to a discretion being exercised for an improper purpose or by reference to irrelevant considerations. A failure to accord, to a person to be affected by a decision, a reasonable opportunity to be heard may contravene a statutory requirement to accord such a hearing. It may also have the consequence that relevant material which the decision-maker is bound to take into account is not taken into account.

The decision of the MRT to proceed to its determination was not, on the face of it, informed by any consideration other than the asserted sufficiency of the opportunities provided to the first respondent to put her case. The MRT did not in terms or by implication accept or reject the substance of the reasons for a deferment put to it by the first respondent's migration agent. It did not suggest that the first respondent's request for a deferment was due to any fault on her part or on the part of her migration agent. It did not suggest that its decision was based on any balancing of the legislative objectives set out in s 353. Its decision was fatal to the first respondent's application. There was in the circumstances, including the already long history of the matter, an arbitrariness about the decision, which rendered it unreasonable in the limiting sense explained above.

1. Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ said, of the power in s 363, as follows at [63]:

Because s 363(1)(b) contains a statutory discretionary power, the standard to be applied to the exercise of that power is not derived only from s 357A(3), but also from a presumption of the law. The legislature is taken to intend that a discretionary power, statutorily conferred, will be exercised reasonably.

1. Drawing upon the "second limb" in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, that is, the capacity of an appellate court to infer that there has been a failure to properly exercise a discretion "if upon the facts [the result] is unreasonable or plainly unjust", their Honours said (at [76]):

The same reasoning might apply to the review of the exercise of a statutory discretion, where unreasonableness is an inference drawn from the facts and from the matters falling for consideration in the exercise of the statutory power. Even where some reasons have been provided, as is the case here, it may nevertheless not be possible for a court to comprehend how the decision was arrived at. Unreasonableness is a conclusion which may be applied to a decision which lacks an evident and intelligible justification.

1. Their Honours went on to determine that the Tribunal's exercise of discretion was unreasonable. The decision to refuse the adjournment had been premised on its view that Ms Li had been given enough opportunities to present her case and the Tribunal was not prepared to delay the matter further. However, the only significant delay had been attributable to the Tribunal. The need to conclude the matter should have been weighed against the object and statutory purpose of s 360, namely, to afford the applicant an opportunity to present evidence and argument relating to the issues arising on the review ([80]-[83]).
2. In Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437; [2014] FCAFC 1 (Singh), the Full Court of the Federal Court determined that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion in a legally unreasonable manner when it refused a visa applicant an adjournment.
3. In Singh the visa applicant was required to demonstrate his possession of "competent English". Possession of those skills might be demonstrated by achieving an "IELTS" test score of at least six on four test components: speaking, reading, writing and listening, and there was authority that the regulation required those scores to be achieved in the same test. Following an application for review lodged in April 2012, the Tribunal listed the matter for hearing in November 2021. Approaching the hearing the applicant sought additional time to sit the IELTS test. The Tribunal gave the applicant until 31 December 2012 to provide evidence of his compliance with the English requirement. On 1 January 2013, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal advising that he had achieved the requisite marks in all the topics except "listening", in which he had been awarded a mark of five. The applicant had achieved a mark of six or more when he had taken the test previously and indicated he was seeking a re-mark of his test results.
4. The Tribunal declined to grant additional time.
5. The Full Court found that the Tribunal erred in doing so, as there was no objective or intelligible justification given by the Tribunal for refusing the adjournment, in circumstances where there was no reason to think that a re-mark would take a long time, and there was some basis in the applicant's previous test results to think that he may have achieved a satisfactory result in listening.
6. The application of those principles to the present matter is discussed below a recitation of the relevant history.

1. The applicant, born 3 March 1979, is a citizen of Pakistan.
2. The applicant initially arrived in Australia in April 2010. The applicant held a series of student visas and undertook the following studies:

(1) Certificate IV in Business, between January 2011 and June 2011;

(2) Diploma of Management, between June 2011 and December 2012;

(3) Master in Professional Accounting Extended, between March 2012 and March 2015; and

(4) Master in Business Administration, between March 2017 and July 2018.

1. Prior to his arrival in Australia, the applicant had completed a Bachelor of Education degree at the University of Education, Lahore.
2. In the visa application on 27 September 2018, the applicant stated that he wished to remain in Australia to undertake study towards a Certificate IV in Marketing and Communication. In explaining his desire to undertake this new study path, the applicant explained, in a typed document annexed to the visa application (the GTE statement) that:

...[my uncle] persuaded me to choose this course because in this way I can also get the opportunity to flourish in the booming marketing industry and he also told me that I am already in Australia so can start course quickly ( full of jobs not only in Pakistan but across the world))

(errors in original)

1. On 19 November 2018, the Minister's delegate wrote to the applicant advising the applicant that his visa application had been refused (refusal letter).
2. The decision record attached with the refusal letter recorded the delegate's view that cl 500.212 of sch 2 of the Regulations was not satisfied. That clause was set out in the refusal letter and provided as follows (as at the time of the delegate's decision):

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. The delegate referred to Ministerial Direction No 69 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student and Student Guardian visa applications (the Ministerial direction), which sets out the factors that must be taken into account when assessing the criterion. The delegate noted that the Ministerial direction is made in accordance with s 499 of the Act. The delegate also set out a summary of the factors to be considered arising from the Ministerial direction, which relevantly included:

(1) the applicant's circumstances in their home country;

(2) the applicant's potential circumstances in Australia;

(3) the value of the course to the applicant's future; and

(4) the applicant's immigration history.

1. The delegate then went on to consider those factors in the applicant's case.
2. The delegate said that they were not persuaded that the applicant had significant incentives to return to his home country, when weighed against the fact that the applicant had not provided any evidence of financial or employment ties to Pakistan, and that his wife and children would be eligible to join the applicant in Australia, should the visa application be granted.
3. The delegate also noted that the Certificate IV course the applicant sought to pursue would require the applicant to remain onshore in Australia until at least November 2019, bringing the applicant's total time in Australia on temporary visas to approximately nine years, during which time the applicant has remained unemployed since 2010.
4. The delegate was not satisfied that the study the applicant proposed to undertake would increase his career prospects, given his existing qualifications. In particular, the delegate noted that the applicant had downgraded his level of study from a master's degree from a higher education institution to a Certificate IV level course in the vocational education and training sector. The delegate then referred to the applicant's "GTE statement", giving it little weight because, the delegate considered, the applicant had not provided any detailed or convincing testimony about how achievement of this Australian qualification would assist him in achieving his career goals, particularly where a similar qualification could be obtained at a much lesser cost in his home country.
5. Noting the fact that the applicant had been in Australia for over eight years as the holder of temporary visas, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intended to engage in his proposed study and held significant concerns that the applicant's primary motivation for a student visa was to secure ongoing residence in Australia, rather than due to a genuine interest in the subject matter of his studies
6. The delegate found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of cl 500.212 of sch 2 of the Regulations, concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa, and refused the visa application.

1. The applicant lodged his application for review with the Tribunal on 2 December 2018.
2. On 9 April 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant by email with an invitation to provide information concerning the application for review.
3. The invitation was contained in an attached letter which stated that it was a requirement of the student visa sought by the applicant that he be both:

(a) enrolled in a registered course of study; and

(b) a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.

1. The invitation letter advised the applicant that he would need to provide sufficient information to satisfy the Tribunal that he met both of those visa requirements. It invited him to give the Tribunal, in writing, all relevant information about the course of study he was undertaking and his entry and stay in Australia as a student. The invitation letter directed him to provide specific details about the requested information using the 'Request for Student Visa Information' form (Request form), to which the invitation letter appears to have provided a hyperlink. The invitation letter also provided the applicant with a copy of the Ministerial direction.
2. On the second page of the invitation letter, the following information appeared:

The written information requested in the Request for Student Visa Information form should be received by 23 April 2020. If the information is in a language other than English, it must be accompanied by an English translation from an accredited translator.

If you cannot provide the information by 23 April 2020, you may ask us for an extension of time in which to provide the information. If an extension of time request is made, it must be received by us by 23 April 2020 and it must state the reason why the extension of time is required.

We will carefully consider any request for an extension of time and will advise whether or not the extension has been granted.

(emphasis in original)

1. The Request for Student visa information form contained a section headed "Enrolment and study in Australia". Within that section, under a sub-heading of "Information about enrolment and study in Australia", the form required a response to the following question:

Does the Main Applicant have a current Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in a registered course of study?

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 primary decision maker.

...

1. On 10 April 2020, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal seeking an extension of time to submit the Request form, 'because some of the information is old and requires me to search through the past emails and other sources.'
2. On 14 April 2020, the Tribunal advised the applicant, via a letter attached to an email, that the Tribunal agreed to grant an extension of time. The letter stated the following:

...

We have considered the request carefully and have agreed to grant an extension of time. The information is now to be received by 7 May 2020.

If we do not receive the information by 7 May 2020, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the information. You will also lose any entitlement you might otherwise have had under the Migration Act 1958 to appear before us to give evidence and present arguments.

...

(emphasis in original)

1. The following day, on 15 April 2020, the applicant sent a further email to the Tribunal requesting a further extension of time of three to four months to submit the Request form. In the email, the applicant detailed that the majority of the documents requested by the Tribunal were in the applicant's home in Pakistan, and his wife was unable to return to their home to send the applicant copies of the documents as she was in a COVID-19 induced mandatory lockdown at her parents' home in another part of Pakistan.
2. On 21 April 2020, the Tribunal advised the applicant, via a letter attached to an email, that the Tribunal agreed to grant a further extension of time. The letter stated the following:

...

We have considered the request carefully and have agreed to grant an extension of time. The information is now to be received by 6 July 2020.

If we do not receive the information by 6 July 2020, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the information. You will also lose any entitlement you might otherwise have had under the Migration Act 1958 to appear before us to give evidence and present arguments.

...

(emphasis in original)

1. On 17 June 2020, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal seeking a third extension of time until December 2020 to provide the completed Request form. The applicant asserted that the COVID-19 landscape in Pakistan had significantly worsened, and his wife remained in lockdown at her parents' home. The applicant attached a screenshot to his email, which appeared to detail total confirmed COVID-19 cases, recoveries, and deaths in Pakistan.
2. On 22 June 2020, the Tribunal advised the applicant, via a letter attached to an email, that the Tribunal agreed to grant a further extension of time to provide the requested information until 27 July 2020.
3. On 16 July 2020, the applicant sent a further email to the Tribunal seeking a fourth extension of time. The applicant requested that the Tribunal extend the date 'for a few months', again citing that his wife and children remained at his wife's parents' house.
4. On 21 July 2020, the Tribunal advised the applicant that they agreed to grant an extension for a further 60 days, with the information to be received by 25 September 2020. The Tribunal letter went on to state:

...

Please note that if you cannot provide all of the information requested by this date, please provide whatever information you can. Please also specify what information is missing and cannot be provided, and what attempts you have made to obtain the information.

If we do not receive a response with the requested information, and/or a statement of what is missing and why, by 25 September 2020, we may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the information. You will also lose any entitlement you might otherwise have had under the Migration Act 1958 to appear before us to give evidence and present arguments.

...

(emphasis in original)

1. The applicant ultimately completed the online Request form. It attached a single page statement which appeared to have been prepared using something like the Notes application. The applicant did not attach any documents along with the form.
2. In response to a question in the Request form which asked whether the applicant consented to the Tribunal deciding the review without a hearing, the applicant responded:

Yes, I/we consent to the Tribunal deciding the review without a hearing

1. In the section of the form headed 'Enrolment and study in Australia', the applicant indicated that he did not have a current Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in a registered course of study.
2. In response to a further question regarding how and why the applicant chose the course he is studying and/or proposed to study in future, the applicant again recited that he was not currently enrolled in any course, however, if the Tribunal gave him a chance to enrol, he had a 'couple of options in mind', including enrolling in a leadership and management course.
3. The applicant said that, while there are similar courses available in Pakistan, courses from Australia carry far more worth than courses in his home country.
4. On 4 December 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to comment or respond to information which may influence the Tribunal to affirm the decision under review (being the delegate's decision). The Tribunal noted that a recent check of the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) indicated that the applicant did not hold a current CoE. The Tribunal's letter then went on to recite that if it was found that the applicant was indeed not enrolled in a current course of study, then he would not meet the criteria set out under cl 500.212 of sch 2 of the Regulations. The applicant was invited to respond to the Tribunal in writing by 18 December 2020, or alternatively, request an extension by that same date.
5. On 17 December 2020, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal at 1:27am as follows (the first 17 December 2020 email):

I am replying in response to your email regarding a current electronic confirmation of enrolment . I am going to get one but Would you pz allow me some time till 15 March , because new semester in many institutes starting from March. As time of getting a confirmation of enrolment varies with institutes , I will be needed more time . Before 15 March I will be able to get Electronic confirmation of enrolment and can email to you thanks.

(errors in original)

1. At 10:59am on the same day, being 17 December 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant addressing the applicant's request for an extension of time to provide his comments or response. The Tribunal advised that it had decided not to grant an extension, and the applicant was to provide his comments or response by 18 December 2020, as previously advised.
2. A few hours later, at 4:32pm, the applicant sent a further email which stated the following (the second 17 December 2020 email):

Hi I am writing in response to your email in which you requested me to comment on my current enrolment . I m not currently enrolled in any course because I am not sure whether I will be granted visa or not. However, I have the intention to get COE for graduate certificate and diploma in TESOL as opposed to certificate 4 for which my visa was rejected .

I was waiting for your decision so that I can enrol in the course . Because at one occasion in the past I paid fees to University for the course , while I was waiting for my 485 visa and all fees wasted because I got my TR visa and study was not requirement . Therefore keeping in mind the past event was waiting reply from Review tribunal , then enrol

(errors in original)

1. On 23 December 2020, the Tribunal notified the applicant of its decision to affirm the delegate's decision to refuse the visa application (decision letter). The decision letter attached a copy of the Tribunal's written decision record, dated 22 December 2022.
2. In the written statement of reasons, the Tribunal stated that there was no evidence before it that the applicant was enrolled in any course of study, and it was not satisfied at the time of its decision that the applicant was enrolled in a course of study, and concluded that cl 500.211 of sch 2 to the Regulations was not met, and accordingly the criteria for the grant of a subclass 500 student visa were not met.

1. The amended application alleges the Tribunal erred by failing to exercise its discretion to allow the applicant to obtain relevant evidence in relation to his enrolment. The error is characterised as an unreasonable decision of the type discussed in Li. For reasons set out below, the Tribunal's decision was not unreasonable, and the Tribunal did not err.
2. The Tribunal dealt with the applicant's request relatively briefly, as follows.
3. First, it set out at [4] the request that the Tribunal made of the applicant to provide information by completing the Request for Student Information form, which form sought information as to enrolment.
4. Next, it noted, at [5], that the Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 4 December 2020 pursuant to s 359A of the Act, giving him an opportunity to respond to the information that he did not hold a current certificate of enrolment.
5. The Tribunal then set out (at [6]) the content of the second 17 December 2020 email, which states clearly that the applicant is not enrolled, and that he was waiting on the Tribunal's decision before enrolling.
6. The Tribunal noted, at [7], apparently for emphasis, the applicant's confirmation by his email that he was not enrolled.
7. The Tribunal (at [8]) recorded that it considered whether information that the applicant met the requirements of the Act and Regulations was likely to be forthcoming and whether the applicant had a fair opportunity to provide the information. It stated (at [9]) that it had regard to a number of authorities to the effect that the Tribunal is not obliged to defer its decision-making processes indefinitely, and those regarding reasonableness, namely Li and Singh. The Tribunal stated at [10], that it was not required to make a review applicant's case, and that it is for a review applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the legislation have been satisfied.
8. The Tribunal concluded (at [11]) that in the circumstances, for the reasons it set out in its decision, the applicant had a fair opportunity to provide relevant information.
9. Whilst the Tribunal's reasons were relatively brief, its conclusion was unremarkable in the circumstances. The decision had an evident and intelligible justification.
10. The Tribunal had made it clear at the outset of its review that enrolment in a registered course of study was a condition for the grant of the visa. That fact hardly needed stating, but the Tribunal's letter dated 9 April 2020 made it clear beyond argument. It stated:

...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.

1. In the accompanying Request for Student Visa Information form, the applicant had been prompted to address whether he had a confirmation of enrolment. That form cautioned that:

"not being enrolled in a registered course of study may be a reason for the Tribunal to affirm the decision under review, even if that was not the same criteria or issue considered by the primary decision maker."

1. In those circumstances the applicant could not be heard to deny that he was on notice that he was required to be enrolled to be entitled to the visa he sought.
2. After he was put on notice of the requirement to be enrolled, the Tribunal had given the applicant, in response to his series of requests, abundant time to enrol, to obtain a Certificate of Enrolment and provide it to the Tribunal, and to obtain and provide the other information sought in the Request for Student Visa Information form. The Tribunal extended the time for such response first to 7 May 2020, then to 6 July 2020, then to 27 July 2020, then finally to 25 September 2020.
3. The applicant was then given a further opportunity to secure his enrolment after the Tribunal's letter dated 4 December 2020, which noted the applicant did not appear to be enrolled and gave him until 18 December 2020 to respond. That was effectively a final opportunity for the applicant to organise his enrolment and provide evidence of it to the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to that letter at [5] of its reasons.
4. In response to that request, the applicant on 17 December 2020, that is, the day prior to the deadline set by the Tribunal to provide his enrolment evidence, sent the Tribunal an email seeking a further three months to enrol. The Tribunal, unsurprisingly, rejected that request. Later that day the applicant sent the second 17 December 2020 email explaining that he was awaiting the Tribunal's decision before enrolling. That email proceeded as if the applicant was entitled to disregard the clear earlier communications from the Tribunal about the necessity to demonstrate his enrolment in order to satisfy the criteria for the visa.
5. The "circumstances of the case" to which the Tribunal should be taken to refer at [11] are that the applicant had been clearly told about the requirement for enrolment, had been given since 9 April 2020 to demonstrate that he met the requirement, had been given a further opportunity to meet the requirement by the 4 December 2020 letter, and rather than doing so, requested initially an additional three months, then made a request to the Tribunal that demonstrated the applicant disregarded all of the Tribunal's earlier communications about the necessity of enrolling. Nothing in the applicant's request contained a reasonable explanation for his failure to be enrolled.
6. The applicant's circumstances were not comparable to those of the visa applicants in Li and Singh and did not give rise to the same considerations. Those applicants had each taken significant steps at the time of the Tribunal's determination to obtain the evidence to demonstrate their satisfaction of the visa criteria. In Li, the visa applicant had undertaken the trade skills assessment and was awaiting the results of a further assessment. In Singh, the visa applicant had sat the English competency tests and was pursuing a re-marking, with some basis to expect that would be favourable. They each sought further time to await the results of their efforts to amass the relevant evidence and the adjournments they sought were for the purpose of putting their (already existing) cases to the Tribunal. As a consequence, the purpose in s 360 of the Act, of giving an applicant for review an opportunity of giving evidence and presenting arguments, was required to be weighed in the exercise of the discretion in s 363.
7. In the present matter there is no evidence of the applicant taking any step to attempt to satisfy the enrolment criterion in the two years since lodging his application for review in December 2018, or in the eight months since the Tribunal sent the applicant the Request for Student Visa Information form. The applicant's claim that he was awaiting the Tribunal decision before enrolling did not constitute a proper basis for an adjournment. The applicant was simply requesting to proceed in a manner that was at odds with the Tribunal's statutory mandate and the clear advice from the Tribunal about how the review would proceed, which included that he needed to demonstrate his satisfaction of the enrolment criteria. The applicant's complaint about the inconvenience of having previously enrolled when study was not a requirement for the visa smacks of the proposed enrolment being in service of the objective of securing a visa, rather than the visa being sought to facilitate a definite and genuine plan to undertake study. The applicant did not present an appropriate case for the Tribunal to afford any accommodation.
8. No sensible applicant could reasonably have expected in those circumstances to be given an additional three months or any other accommodation. The evident justification for the Tribunal's decision was that the applicant, having been given clear advice of the visa requirements, a substantial period to provide his enrolment information and a reminder to do so on 4 December 2020, had already been given an opportunity to satisfy the requirements that was more than fair.
9. It is inapt, as the applicant does in his revised submissions dated 26 May 2025, to refer to the applicant's request on 17 December 2020 as one to allow him to "demonstrate his enrolled status" or to characterise the Tribunal's responses to the applicant's eleventh-hour requests on 17 December 2020 as a refusal to allow him to obtain evidence. There was no enrolled status for the applicant to demonstrate. The applicant's request was not one to obtain the evidence he needed to demonstrate the existing fact of his satisfaction of the criteria; he did not satisfy the criteria. He made plain to the Tribunal that was a result of a deliberate choice he had made, which involved disregarding the advice the Tribunal had given him.
10. Unlike the applicants in Li and Singh, the applicant here consented to the Tribunal determining his application without holding a hearing. In that circumstance, s 360(1), which would otherwise have obliged the Tribunal to give the applicant an opportunity to give evidence and present arguments, did not apply, because of the operation of s 360(2)(b). Indeed, s 360(3) provides that the applicant was not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. There was no occasion, as there had been in Singh, for the evident purpose of s 360 to factor into the Tribunal's consideration of the applicant's request for further time.
11. The applicant complains that the Tribunal did not, in its reasons, refer to his first 17 December 2020 email, in which said he was going to get a confirmation of enrolment, and sought until 15 March to do so.
12. The Tribunal did not err by not setting out the first 17 December 2020 email. The Tribunal was not required to set out every piece of evidence that was before it: Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 236 FCR 593; [2003] FCAFC 184. The Tribunal had regard to the first 17 December 2020 email. The Tribunal, on the instruction of the Member conducting the review, wrote to the applicant on 17 December 2020 responding to that email and advising that the extension the applicant sought was not granted. The Tribunal then, in its reasons, addressed the question whether the applicant should be given some additional time to provide further evidence, and determined that question adversely to the applicant.
13. The Tribunal's review was not affected by jurisdictional error. The application must be dismissed with costs.
14. The parties will be given an opportunity to address as to the quantum of such costs.

I certify that the preceding ninety-four (94) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Doust.