The Court held that the Tribunal misapplied cl 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations by misconstruing 'temporarily' — the relevant question is whether the applicant intends to stay permanently or indefinitely in Australia, not whether the applicant intends to maintain ongoing residence during a course of study, as ongoing residence is inherent in any temporary student visa. Following Kaur [2025] FCA 1645, treating enrolment in courses and ordinary incidents of student life as evidence of circumventing the migration programme was illogical and constituted jurisdictional error. The Court rejected the fraud ground, holding that the applicant's use of an unregistered migration agent who was not shown to have acted with dishonest design, and whose advice on the WeChat record appeared to accurately convey the applicant's options regarding a hearing, did not amount to fraud on the applicant or the Tribunal within the SZFDE framework.
The full text is available to signed-in members.