Ahmad v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Mr. Ahmad, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) which affirmed the refusal of his application for a subclass 572 student visa. The MRT had found that Mr. Ahmad failed to satisfy the financial capacity requirements stipulated in Schedule 5A of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the MRT had erred in law by applying the incorrect version of regulation 5A405 of the Migration Regulations 1994 when assessing Mr. Ahmad's financial capacity. The applicant contended that the version of the regulation relied upon by the MRT was not in force at the time of the Tribunal's decision, and consequently, the MRT took into account irrelevant considerations and failed to perform its required task.

The court considered the relevant legislative provisions, including clause 572.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which outlines the criteria for a genuine student visa applicant, and regulation 5A405, which details the financial capacity requirements. The court noted that the MRT had identified specific deficiencies in the financial evidence provided by Mr. Ahmad, particularly concerning the timing of the bank statement and the low closing balance. The applicant had attempted to explain these deficiencies by referring to his father's diabetes, his own depression and sciatica, and the nature of a current account. However, the MRT concluded that the evidence did not meet the requirements of Schedule 5A. The applicant's argument centred on the assertion that the MRT applied an outdated version of regulation 5A405, which he claimed was not in force between the date of his application and the date of the Tribunal's decision.

The court found that the applicant's submission regarding the incorrect regulation being applied was a crucial point. The court determined that the version of regulation 5A405 relied upon by the Tribunal was indeed not in force at the time of the Tribunal's decision. This error meant that the Tribunal had applied the wrong legal test to the applicant's financial evidence. Consequently, the court concluded that the MRT had made an error of law. The court set aside the decision of the MRT and remitted the matter to the MRT for redetermination according to law.