Aziz v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Riley of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia concerning an application for review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal had affirmed the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to cancel the applicant's student visa. The cancellation was based on a breach of condition 8105 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which limited the applicant to working no more than 40 hours per fortnight while his course was in session. Evidence from the Taxi Services Commission indicated the applicant had exceeded this limit in 15 fortnights.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had erred in affirming the visa cancellation. This involved determining whether the applicant had, in fact, breached condition 8105, and if so, whether the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion in affirming the cancellation. The applicant contended that the log-on and log-off times from the taxi service did not accurately reflect actual working hours, as he had access to the vehicle for private use and sometimes failed to log off properly. He argued that the evidence did not conclusively prove he was working during the recorded hours.

Judge Riley reasoned that while the applicant admitted to the hours presented, he qualified this by stating that "working" only occurred when he had a passenger, not during periods of waiting or private use of the vehicle. The Tribunal had considered the applicant's submissions that the log-on and log-off times were not definitive proof of work, noting his access to the vehicle for private purposes and the possibility of not logging off. However, the Tribunal ultimately concluded that the perceived breach may have arisen from the applicant's access to the vehicle for private use and his failure to log off appropriately. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's approach to the evidence and the exercise of its discretion.

Consequently, the application filed by the applicant was dismissed. The applicant was also ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding, fixed at $7,328.