To reply to that question, the criterion, of course, for a Federal Court review is that there was an error in law or in the way the decision was approached. Most courts give a fair amount of latitude, as I think they should, to visa offices' expertise in analyzing the facts before them. They are not going to review the facts. People often don't understand that it is a legal issue. It's one of approach that is under review, not a rehash of the facts. That is what narrows the issues and the eligibility to be before the Federal Court.
On June 6th, 2013. See this statement in context.