Legal Update: Judicial Review in Student Visa Refusals
Thakur v Minister for Immigration [2025] FedCFamC2G — MLG 3355 of 2019
Case Summary
On 12 June 2025, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), presided over by Judge Fary, delivered judgment in a judicial review application concerning refusal of a Student Visa (Subclass 500). The case involved Ms Ritika Thakur, her husband Anand Singh Cheema, and their child Viraaj Singh Cheema. The Department had refused the application under clause 500.212 (GTE requirement), and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the refusal. Ms Thakur sought review under section 476 of the Migration Act 1958.
The Court considered whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error, particularly by recording her arrival date incorrectly and by failing to consider material evidence about her ties to India and family circumstances.
Key Issues
- Failure to properly assess Ms Thakur’s GTE statement and evidence of ties to India.
- Excessive reliance on immigration history instead of present circumstances.
- Procedural unfairness by not allowing her to address adverse concerns.
- Failure to consider the best interests of the child (s.60CC Family Law Act 1975).
- Critical factual error: recording her arrival as 2008 instead of 2014.
Applicant’s Arguments
- Strong family, social and financial ties to India, including ancestral property and care responsibilities for her mother.
- Course choice explained by family circumstances (death of brother, mother’s ill health).
- Hospitality course intended to support business plans in India.
- Tribunal placed undue emphasis on past visa history without considering explanations.
- Incorrect arrival date unfairly suggested 10+ years in Australia.
- Impact on her young child overlooked.
Minister’s Response
- Tribunal considered all relevant evidence including immigration history.
- Arrival date error not material to outcome.
- Child welfare provisions under Family Law Act not applicable to migration review.
- Procedural fairness requirements were met.
Court’s Findings
- Most complaints went to weight of evidence — not reviewable.
- A jurisdictional error was established because the Tribunal relied on the wrong arrival date (2008 vs 2014).
- This error was material — it shaped reasoning about her length of stay in Australia.
- Other grounds (Direction 69 misapplication, fairness, unreasonableness) dismissed.
Decision and Orders
- The Tribunal’s 2019 decision was set aside.
- Matter remitted for reconsideration according to law.
- A writ of mandamus issued requiring the Tribunal to review afresh.
- Minister ordered to pay applicants’ costs.
Significance
- Migration review decisions must rest on accurate factual findings.
- Even “small” errors (arrival dates) may amount to jurisdictional error.
- Courts do not reassess merits but ensure legal errors are corrected.
- Applicants must clearly present and emphasise critical factual evidence before the Tribunal.
This case summary is for general information purposes only and is based on publicly available court findings. It does not constitute legal advice. For tailored advice, please contact Bansal Lawyers – best lawyers in Melbourne.
Thakur v Minister for Immigration 2025 – Student Visa Case