Ahmad v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

In Ahmad v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the appellant challenged the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Tribunal to cancel his student visa. The appellant contended that the Tribunal had failed to apply proper law and procedure, and that the laws of natural justice were 'clearly violated'. The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review the decision of the delegate on the merits, despite the failure to comply with s 119. The appellant further appealed to the Federal Court.

The main legal issue before the Court was whether the Federal Magistrates Court erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the decision of the Tribunal to cancel his student visa. The appellant argued that the Federal Magistrates Court failed to consider the relevant law, failed to recognise that there was no breach of condition 8202 of the regulations, and failed to recognise that the Tribunal decision was full of legal errors, coupled with jurisdictional error. The appellant also argued that the Federal Magistrates Court erred in failing to find that the Tribunal failed to apply proper law and procedure and that the laws of natural justice were 'clearly violated'.

The Court found that the Federal Magistrates Court did not fail to consider the relevant law. The Court set out correctly the relevant law and proceeded to consider and apply it. It correctly found that there was no error in the decision of the Tribunal in finding, first, that the appellant had not complied with condition 8202; and secondly that non-compliance was not due to exceptional circumstances beyond his control. The Court also found that the Federal Magistrates Court did not fail to consider all the appellant's submissions, as is reflected in its reasons for judgment. The Court considered specific matters agitated by the appellant, together with other matters which did not specifically fit into the grounds of the application, which related to statements from the College as to the appellant's attendance. The Court further found that there was simply no material to support the appellant's third ground of appeal.

The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the first respondent.