Rani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs - Appeal Dismissed

Original Word Document (78.8 KB) Federal Court of Australia

Rani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 452

| Appeal from: | Rani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1348 |
| | |
| File number: | SAD 1 of 2025 |
| | |
| Judgment of: | CHARLESWORTH J |
| | |
| Date of judgment: | 2 April 2026 |
| | |
| Date of publication of reasons: | 16 April 2026 |
| | |
| Catchwords: | MIGRATION – appeal from order dismissing an application for judicial review of a migration decision – primary judge concluding the decision was not affected by jurisdictional error – appellants at first instance inviting the primary judge to review the migration decision on the merits – appellants on appeal inviting the primary judge to review the migration decision on the merits – no appealable error – appeal dismissed |
| | |
| Legislation: | Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 474

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl 500.212 |
| | |
| Cases cited: | Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163

MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 238 FCR 158

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476

Rani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1348

Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82 |
| | |
| Division: | General Division |
| | |
| Registry: | South Australia |
| | |
| National Practice Area: | Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights |
| | |
| Number of paragraphs: | 16 |
| | |
| Date of hearing: | 2 April 2026 |
| | |
| Counsel for the Appellants: | The first appellant appeared in person on behalf of the appellants |
| | |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms T Rosetta |
| | |
| Solicitor for the First Respondent: | Sparke Helmore Lawyers |
| | |
| Counsel for the Second Respondent: | The Second Respondent filed a Submitting Notice |
ORDERS

| | | SAD 1 of 2025 |
| | | |
| BETWEEN: | REKHA RANI

First Appellant

SURESH PAL

Second Appellant | |
| AND: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent | |

| order made by: | CHARLESWORTH J |
| DATE OF ORDER: | 2 APRIL 2026 |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellants are to pay the first respondent’s costs, fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CHARLESWORTH J

1 The first appellant, Ms Rekha Rani applied for a Student (Temporary) (class TU) Student (subclass 500) visa on 18 April 2019. A delegate of the then-named Minister for Home Affairs declined the application. The then-named Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal’s decision: Rani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1348.

2 On 2 April 2026. I dismissed the appeal from that judgment. Oral reasons were given on that day. This is a written record of those reasons, revised from the transcript.

3 The second appellant is Ms Rani’s husband. Mr Pal’s immigration status depended upon whether Ms Rani was granted the visa. At the hearing of the appeal, he adopted all of Ms Rani’s submissions.

4 The notice of appeal comprises 12 paragraphs. By paragraph 11, the appellants allege that the primary judge erred when “considering the facts” of their case.

5 The remaining paragraphs do not articulate an appealable error. Rather, they set out the facts upon which Ms Rani relies in order to satisfy the necessary criteria for the grant of the visa for which she had applied. They included the criterion contained in cl 500.212(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), referred to as the “temporary entrant criterion”. It required that the Minister (and on review the Tribunal) be satisfied that Ms Rani intends to stay in Australia temporarily.

6 The primary judge set out in some detail the background to the visa application and summarised (again in some detail) the reasoning of the Tribunal. In brief summary, the Tribunal:

(1) referred to studies that Ms Rani intended to undertake which would have extended her stay in Australia to 17 years;

(2) said that it was not satisfied that her future proposed courses of study would improve her employment prospects and remuneration in her home country of India;

(3) had regard to the extent to which the courses of study were complementary of each other;

(4) identified gaps in Ms Rani’s previous studies;

(5) found that similar courses of study could be undertaken by Ms Rani in her home country;

(6) considered Mr Rani’s work history, her assets and her ties to India and Australia; and

(7) found that Ms Rani had returned home to India on six occasions for a total stay of approximately eight months, indicating that she intended to remain in Australia rather than return home.

7 On their application for judicial review, it was necessary for the appellants to show that the Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 474; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476; Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82; Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163.

8 The reasons of primary judge record (at [43]) the explanations and guidance he had given to the appellants concerning a court’s task on an application for judicial review and some common categories of jurisdictional error. On this appeal the appellants did not contend that the assistance described in that passage had not been given, nor did they take issue with its accuracy.

9 At first instance, the appellants relied on seven grounds of review. The primary judge said that in reality the application did not allege jurisdictional error, but rather outlined Ms Rani’s reasons for wishing to continue to study in Australia. The primary judge went on to say that he would interpret the originating application as broadly as possible in accordance with the principles stated in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 238 FCR 158. Adopting that approach, his Honour interpreted the originating application to assert that the Tribunal had failed to properly have regard to, or engage on an intellectual level, with Ms Rani’s stated future intentions to open an accounting business in India and the value of her studies to that plan.

10 The primary judge went on to conclude (at [50]) that it was clear that the Tribunal was aware of Ms Rani’s stated intentions to complete her studies in Australia and to return to India and that the Tribunal had clearly engaged in an active intellectual process with that evidence in connection with the dispositive issues. The primary judge listed the matters the Tribunal had noted, the material it had considered, and the facts it had found and recognised. The primary judge concluded that the Tribunal’s findings were clearly open to it on the evidence.

11 On this appeal, it is necessary for the appellants to show that the primary judge committed appealable error in disposing of the application for judicial review in the manner I have just described. As I have mentioned, the notice of appeal does not articulate any ground by which an asserted error of that kind can be identified. Moreover, in the course of oral argument, Ms Rani was asked to identify any particular part of the reasons of the primary judge that disclosed an appealable error but she did not seek to do so.

12 Ms Rani’s oral submissions had two components to them. First, she made submissions about her courses of studies. She submitted that she was a genuine student and she explained the attempts that she had made to embark on further studies, including for the conferral of a PhD qualification. When it was explained to Ms Rani that the criterion in issue in her case was whether or not she genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, she acknowledged that she did indeed wish to stay in Australia permanently.

13 The second component of her submissions was that whilst she respected the judgment of the primary judge, it was her hope that this Court could and should make a different decision and so ensure that she was granted the visa.

14 I am not satisfied that the notice of appeal discloses an appealable error on the part of the primary judge and no such error was disclosed in the course of oral submissions. Nor is appealable error immediately apparent on the face of the reasons of the primary judge. On appeal, as at first instance, the submissions amounted to an invitation to embark on a review of the merits of the Tribunal’s decision, which this Court does not have the power to do.

15 It follows from what I have said that the appeal must be dismissed.

Orders

16 There will be orders as follows:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The appellants are to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

| I certify that the preceding sixteen (16) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Charlesworth. |
Associate:

Dated: 2 April 2026

Top