Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship – Student Visa Appeal Dismissed

Original Word Document (86.5 KB) Federal Court of Australia

Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 483

| Appeal from: | Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 492 |

| File number: | SAD 73 of 2025 |

| Judgment of: | MCDONALD J |

| Date of judgment: | 21 April 2026 |

| Catchwords: | MIGRATION – appeal from decision of Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dismissing application for judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where Tribunal affirmed decision of delegate of first respondent to refuse to grant Student (subclass 500) visa – where appellant found not to meet genuine temporary entry criterion in cl 500.212 of Sch 2 to Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – no error by primary judge – no jurisdictional error in decision of Tribunal – appeal dismissed |

| Legislation: | Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 359, 499

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Sch 2, cl 500.212 |

| Cases cited: | MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 238 FCR 158; [2015] FCA 1392 |

| Division: | General Division |

| Registry: | South Australia |

| National Practice Area: | Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights |

| Number of paragraphs: | 29 |

| Date of hearing: | 10 April 2026 |

| Counsel for the Appellant: | The Appellant appeared in person |

| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr O H F Morris |

| Solicitor for the First Respondent: | HWL Ebsworth Lawyers |

| Counsel for the Second Respondent: | The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice |
ORDERS

| SAD 73 of 2025 |

| BETWEEN: | JAGNANDAN SINGH

Appellant | |
| AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent | |

| order made by: | MCDONALD J |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 21 APRIL 2026 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be agreed or assessed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MCDONALD J:

Introduction

1 The appellant, Jagnandan Singh, appeals against a judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (FCFCOA): Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 492. On 10 April 2025, the primary judge dismissed Mr Singh’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision made by a delegate of the predecessor of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Minister), not to grant Mr Singh a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa (student visa).

2 On 1 May 2025, Mr Singh filed a notice of appeal, seeking orders that the previous court decision be reconsidered and quashed, and that the Department of Home Affairs be advised to reconsider his application for a student visa.

3 For the reasons that follow, Mr Singh has not established any error in the judgment of the primary judge and has not established any jurisdictional error affecting the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Factual background

4 Mr Singh is a citizen of India, who first arrived in Australia on 31 August 2008 as the holder of a student visa. Since 2008, he has remained in Australia and has subsequently held a further four student visas whilst undertaking study in the following courses:

(a) Certificate IV in Spoken and Written English (completed in November 2008);

(b) Certificate III in Printing and Graphics (completed in April 2010);

(c) Diploma of Multimedia (completed in September 2010);

(d) Certificate IV in Business (completed in December 2012);

(e) Diploma of Management (completed in August 2013);

(f) Diploma of Marketing (completed in October 2014);

(g) Advanced Diploma of Marketing (completed in February 2016);

(h) Diploma of Business (completed in January 2018); and

(i) Advanced Diploma of Business (completed in February 2019).

5 On 10 April 2019, Mr Singh submitted an application for a sixth student visa. In the application, he indicated that he was enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management.

6 On 23 July 2019, Mr Singh’s application for a further student visa was refused by a delegate of the Minister. On 5 August 2019, Mr Singh applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision. On 15 March 2021, following a hearing conducted by telephone, the Tribunal made a decision to affirm the decision of the delegate. On 1 April 2021, the Tribunal provided written reasons for its decision. Mr Singh then applied to the FCFCOA for judicial review of that decision, leading to the decision of the primary judge which is the subject of the present appeal.

Genuine temporary entrant criterion

7 The relevant criteria for the grant of a student visa are set out in Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The issue for the Tribunal’s determination was whether Mr Singh satisfied the genuine temporary entrant (GTE) criterion in cl 500.212(a) of Sch 2. At the time of the Tribunal’s decision, that clause was expressed in the following terms:

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

(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

(c)    of any other relevant matter.

8 In accordance with s 499(1) and (2A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), in assessing whether Mr Singh satisfied cl 500.212(a), the delegate and the Tribunal were required to have regard to the Ministerial Direction entitled “Direction Number 69 – Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications” (Direction 69). Specifically, the delegate and the Tribunal were to be guided by the following factors, when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole:

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

(b) the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

(c) if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

(d) any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

Decision of the Tribunal

9 On 29 January 2021, in accordance with s 359(2) of the Migration Act (as then in force), the Tribunal wrote to Mr Singh, inviting him to provide information to satisfy the Tribunal that he was enrolled in a registered course of study and that he was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student in Australia. Mr Singh provided a response to the Tribunal’s invitation, which included a confirmation of enrolment to undertake an Advanced Diploma of Business from 12 April 2021 to 10 April 2022, with the certificate of enrolment being created on 2 March 2021.

10 The Tribunal invited Mr Singh to attend a hearing via telephone on 15 March 2021. In the course of the hearing, Mr Singh gave further evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision, finding that Mr Singh did not satisfy the GTE criterion, because he was not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student since he did not intend to stay in Australia temporarily. On 1 April 2021, the Tribunal provided a written statement of decision and reasons. Its reasons may be summarised as follows.

11 The Tribunal first noted that Mr Singh had already obtained an Advanced Diploma of Business and now wished to complete the same course again. The Tribunal did not accept Mr Singh’s evidence that the current course had different subjects that would enable him to learn different skills to assist him in establishing a construction business in India. The Tribunal noted that none of the courses Mr Singh had completed related to building and construction.

12 The Tribunal had regard to Mr Singh’s visa and study history over the period of more than 12 years that he had stayed in Australia and observed that it appeared he intended to stay in Australia permanently. The Tribunal also noted (at [21] of its reasons) that Mr Singh appeared to be undertaking courses merely to maintain his residency, given that the courses were “short, inexpensive, vocational education training courses … and not courses at the higher level”. The Tribunal found that the courses were “not compl[e]mentary to each other and not lead to a position in employment”.

13 The Tribunal then considered Mr Singh’s employment history in Australia, noting that he had previously worked as a labourer and a taxi driver. The Tribunal found (at [22] and [23] of its reasons) that Mr Singh had earned a “substantial level of income” in these roles, providing him with a “substantial financial incentive to remain in Australia rather than return home”.

14 Mr Singh gave evidence that he had returned home to India on five occasions during his stay in Australia. However, he had not returned to India in the preceding four and a half years. Despite the COVID‑19 pandemic, the Tribunal did not accept that this failure to return was adequately explained and rather, inferred that it reflected a desire to remain in Australia. The Tribunal had regard to Mr Singh’s $1.2 million in property holdings in India, comprising a house and agricultural land. The Tribunal found that this asset did not provide Mr Singh with a financial incentive to return home, noting that he had not returned home to live since 2008, and that, during that time, the land had continued to be farmed by his family.

15 The Tribunal found that Mr Singh had stronger ties to Australia than to India. Whilst Mr Singh has a mother, sister and uncle who reside in India, he had not returned to see them for more than four years.

16 The Tribunal acknowledged that there had been no prior visa refusals, cancellations, or other adverse decisions in relation to Mr Singh’s visa history. Nevertheless, it expressed concern that Mr Singh sought to remain in Australia to undertake a course of study that he had already completed. The Tribunal was also concerned that, between February 2019 and April 2021, Mr Singh was not enrolled in any registered course of study. It considered that this significant gap in study was inconsistent with an intention to undertake studies in a timely manner. The Tribunal further observed that, had Mr Singh held a student visa during that period, his failure to enrol would ordinarily have constituted a breach of visa conditions and may have provided a basis for cancellation.

17 The Tribunal concluded (at [39] of its reasons) that Mr Singh’s primary objective was to “maintain ongoing residence in Australia and to remain here permanently”. Therefore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Singh met the GTE criterion in cl 500.212(a) of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate.

The decision of the primary judge

18 On 8 April 2021, Mr Singh filed an originating application in the FCFCOA for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal. The application contained nine numbered points. The primary judge, considering Mr Singh’s application in accordance with the guidance provided by MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 238 FCR 158; [2015] FCA 1392, interpreted Mr Singh’s grounds broadly, and identified (at [43] of the primary judgment) three potential arguments which Mr Singh could be understood to be advancing.

19 Given that Mr Singh was not represented by a lawyer, the primary judge explained the limits of judicial review and the concept of jurisdictional error, and permitted Mr Singh to expand on his grounds of review in oral submissions. Mr Singh further explained that his visa application was rejected on the basis that he was not applying for “hard study”; provided reasons for not having travelled back to India in several years and for changing his career plans from construction to hospitality; and explained he wanted a “last chance to get it right” in Court.

20 After considering each of Mr Singh’s arguments (as generously interpreted by the primary judge), the primary judge found that no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal had been demonstrated. In summary, the primary judge held as follows:

(1) The Tribunal was aware of Mr Singh’s stated intentions with respect to his study and future business plans in India, and his explanation for not returning to India. It considered this evidence alongside other factors, and ultimately did not accept his claim that he intended to complete his studies in Australia then return to India. The Tribunal engaged with Mr Singh’s claims and its findings were based on rational reasons. (Primary judge’s reasons at [44]-[53].)

(2) The Tribunal was not required to consider whether there were compelling or compassionate circumstances for Mr Singh to remain in Australia. Its task was to determine whether Mr Singh had satisfied the GTE criterion, having regard to the factors outlined in Direction 69. This is what the Tribunal did. The Tribunal’s findings were open to it. (Primary judge’s reasons at [54]-[60].)

(3) The Tribunal invited Mr Singh to a hearing, gave him an opportunity to provide additional information and documents, and considered the evidence he provided. No denial of procedural fairness or other arguable jurisdictional error was apparent. (Primary judge’s reasons at [61]-[65].)

21 Accordingly, the primary judge dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appeal to this Court

22 The notice of appeal filed by Mr Singh in this Court contains nine paragraphs under the heading “Grounds of appeal”, as follows:

1.    I am writing to formally appeal the decision of the Court regarding the refusal of my student visa application. I had applied for a student visa to undertake the Advanced Diploma of Business with the sincere intention of gaining the knowledge and skills necessary to become a successful provider of construction and renovation services in my home country, India.

2.    My application was unfortunately refused by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection … , the Administrative Appeals Tribunal … , and subsequently by the Court. One of the main reasons cited for refusal was that I had not returned to India in the last five years, which was interpreted as a lack of genuine ties to my home country.

3.    I respectfully submit that these conclusions were made without fully considering all relevant elements and supporting documents, and thus did not satisfy the principles of natural justice. The assumption that my lack of travel to India implies a lack of connection is not accurate. In today’s digitally connected world, I have maintained constant contact and involvement with my family through technology. My decision to remain in Australia was based on my commitment to completing my education before returning to India permanently.

4.    I would like to highlight that I have strong family ties in India. My parents reside in India. I am their only child. I own 20 acres of land that are awaiting future residential development. My long-term plan has always been to return to India upon completing my studies, to develop these lands and establish a reputable business in construction and renovation. I had even prepared to sell my car and other possessions before returning. However, the series of visa refusals placed me in a difficult and uncertain situation, making it challenging to proceed with those plans.

5.    Given the above, I respectfully request that my case be reconsidered on natural justice where circumstances were beyond my control as I kept getting refusals for my visa application. Therefore, considering the full context of my genuine study intentions, my family and economic ties to India, and my future goals.

6.    Thank you for your time and consideration.

23 Mr Singh did not file written submissions in support of his appeal. He appeared at the hearing and made short oral submissions in support of the appeal. The oral submissions did not closely reflect the “grounds” stated in the notice of appeal. Mr Singh submitted that he had only completed what he referred to as “temporary diplomas” and that he had not yet done a “strong course”. He also appeared to submit that if he did a proper course then he could “maybe apply for a permanent visa”. The latter point appeared consistent with the Tribunal’s conclusion that Mr Singh did not intend to remain in Australia temporarily for the purpose of studying. Otherwise, his oral submissions appeared to be directed to explaining why it would be in his interests to hold a visa and to study in Australia. These submissions were directed to the merits of the Tribunal’s decision and did not identify any basis on which it could be concluded that the primary judge erred in his determination of the application for judicial review, or that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

24 Mr Singh’s statement of his grounds of appeal is also primarily directed to expressing disagreement with the merits of the decision of the Tribunal.

25 Mr Singh asserts that the Tribunal made its decision “without fully considering all relevant elements and supporting documents”. A failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider relevant evidence advanced by Mr Singh in respect of his circumstances (including his past study, the value of the proposed further study, and the circumstances of his property and family in India) and his immigration history could potentially support a conclusion that the Tribunal had misapplied Direction 69 and that its decision was affected by jurisdictional error. However, it is clear that the Tribunal did take into account each of the considerations to which it was required to have regard.

26 Mr Singh’s real complaint seems to be that the Tribunal should not have reached the conclusion that it did, or that the Tribunal gave undue weight to matters which supported its view and insufficient weight to the considerations relied on by Mr Singh in support of his position that he genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily. Mr Singh’s disagreement with the merits of the Tribunal’s decision in this regard does not establish that the decision was affected by jurisdictional error. Similar contentions advanced by Mr Singh on the application for judicial review were addressed by the primary judge at [44]-[53] of his Honour’s reasons. I agree with the primary judge’s reasons.

27 Insofar as Mr Singh now refers, in his notice of appeal, to his capacity to remain in contact with his family in India via digital means, that does not appear to be a matter that was specifically relied on before the Tribunal (or before the primary judge). In those circumstances, it was not necessary for the Tribunal specifically to refer to that in its reasons. The Tribunal referred to Mr Singh’s family circumstances and assessed the weight to be given to the fact that he had not visited his family in person for some time. The Tribunal in fact concluded (at [27] of its reasons) that “considering his level of education, financial circumstances and support from family in India”, Mr Singh was “in a good position and that would provide him with a significant incentive to return home”. The Tribunal weighed this against what it found to be a significant incentive for Mr Singh to stay in Australia and its concern about his desire to stay in Australia to study a course that he had already completed. These were matters for the Tribunal itself to assess, based on the evidence before it.

28 Although Mr Singh has referred to “natural justice”, he has not identified any specific basis on which it could be concluded that he was denied procedural fairness in connection with the Tribunal decision. The primary judge addressed Mr Singh’s submission that Mr Singh was not afforded procedural fairness at [61]-[63] of his Honour’s reasons, and I agree with his Honour’s conclusion that no denial of procedural fairness was established.

Conclusion

29 Mr Singh has not established any error in the decision of the primary judge. He has not identified jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

| I certify that the preceding twenty-nine (29) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald. |
Associate:

Dated: 21 April 2026