Baldado (Migration)

Baldado (Migration) [2019] AATA 3037 (3 June 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Ms Lindy June Baldado
CASE NUMBER:  1711559
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/931912
MEMBER:Mark O'Loughlin
DATE:3 June 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 03 June 2019 at 10:44am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) visa – genuine temporary entrant criterion not met– maintain ongoing residence – incentive to remain in Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.03, Schedule 2, cls 500.211, 500.212, 500.218
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 24 May 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 9 March 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate did not accept that the applicant is a genuine student, and found that she does not intend to stay in Australia temporarily.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 9 May 2019 to give evidence and present arguments
The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by her registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.
Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)
Clause 500.212 requires as follows:
The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:
(a)the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
(i)the applicant’s circumstances; and
(ii)the applicant’s immigration history; and
(iii)if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
(iv)any other relevant matter; and
(b)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:
(i)the applicant’s record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and
(ii)the applicant’s stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and
(c)of any other relevant matter.
Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?
In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.69, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction, which is attached to this decision, requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:
·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;
·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;
·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.
The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
The applicant gave evidence that she came to Australia on July 5 2011 and studied a certificate in aged care.
That took 2 years and then she did a certificate in Aromatherapy for 18 months which she said led to a course in remedial massage which was at TAFE and also lasted 18 months.
She was not certain about the exact timing of each course but said that in February 2017 she started a Diploma in Early Childhood Education and Care.
She was asked if she had enrolled in that course more than once, as suggested in the delegate’s decision but she said she had only enrolled in the course once.
For the purposes of this decision it is not important and the Tribunal finds only that she was enrolled in a Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care (Childcare) at TAFE which was due to start on 22 February 2017, which is consistent with a confirmation of enrolment certificate (CoE) at folio 73 of the departmental file.
The applicant said that the course is about 2 years and that she is due to complete it in December of this year.
The Tribunal pointed out that the CoE said that the course should have been completed by December 2018.
The applicant said that she believed she would not be able to apply for any further visa until this review is complete and so she had spread her study out to ensure that she remained enrolled.
When asked what further course she wanted to study she said a Diploma in Beauty Therapies.
When asked if she could have completed the Diploma in Childcare by December 2018 if she had kept studying, she agreed that she could have.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence in this regard and finds that she delayed finishing the childcare course by about a year to facilitate applying for a further visa.
The applicant gave some evidence about her work in Australia which was in a nursing home for about 4 years and now doing remedial massage in a spa, which she has done for about 2 years.
She said that she works 20 hours per week and that she makes $29.00 per hour.
When she was later asked how much she makes per week she said she did not know. She agreed that she worked the same amount of time every week and thought that she received $600.00 to $800.00 per fortnight. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence about her work in Australia.
The applicant was asked about her circumstances in her home country as required by Ministerial Direction 69.
In relation to her reasons for studying in Australia rather than the Philippines, she said that courses generally directed to the areas of early learning and childcare are available in the Philippines but that they are different to the Australian courses. She said that the approach and settings are different.
When asked to explain what she meant by that she said that, for example, when it comes to harassment children in Australia already understand what that is whereas in the Philippines it is not so.
When asked why that made it preferable to study in Australia, particularly if Australian conditions are different to those in the Philippines, she replied that she wanted to take Australian methods to the Philippines and use them there. She said that she wants to introduce some learning from Australia to the Philippines.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s evidence is unconvincing and that she has not established reasonable reasons for not studying in the Philippines.
In relation to personal ties to her home country, the applicant said that most of her family members live in the Philippines. She said she has a sister and a brother in law in Australia and that she lives with them but that all of her other family and friends are in the Philippines.
She said that she visits the Philippines about once per year.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does have personal ties, and in particular, family ties to the Philippines but is not satisfied that they would serve as a significant incentive for her to return to the Philippines.
In relation to her economic circumstances in the Philippines, the applicant said that when she finishes the childcare course she wants to go back to the Philippines and start a childcare business with her brother, who has his own business and understands these matters.
At this point her evidence was that she will go back to the Philippines in December this year when she has finished her course and that she will set up the childcare business then.
She was then asked how she would do the Diploma in Beauty Therapy that, earlier in her evidence, she had said she wanted to study next.
She said she would study that course in the Philippines. She later gave evidence that was inconsistent with this.
She said that the beauty therapy qualifications would complement her massage qualifications and that massage is a booming business in the Philippines.
She was asked if she proposes to combine her childcare business with a beauty therapy and massage business and she said she does. The Tribunal put to her that this seemed like a very mixed type of business and she said that is usual in the Philippines.
When asked what would be the most important part of the business she replied that she thought it would be the childcare.
When she was asked about her potential earnings in the Philippines she said that she was not sure and had not investigated that. She thought she might earn more than she does in Australia at the spa.
She acknowledged that there would be costs involved in setting up a business in the Philippines but that she did not know how much they would be. Further, she anticipated that there would be some time before her business started making a regular income but she did not know how long that is likely to be.
She said that there has been a change in opportunities in the Philippines since 2012 when a change to local laws had the effect of expanding the need for kindergarten. She said she hopes to take advantage of that expansion.
The applicant said, and the Tribunal accepts, that she does not know what will be involved in setting up her business and has not done any research about that.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not know what her potential earnings are and does not have a settled plan for her career upon her return to the Philippines.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a firm idea of her likely economic circumstances in the Philippines and cannot exclude economic difficulties there. This may provide a significant incentive not to return to her home country.
The applicant gave evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, that she is not subject of military service commitments, and that there is no relevant political and civil unrest in the Philippines. The Tribunal finds that these factors do not provide an incentive for the applicant to remain in Australia and have not influenced her to apply for a Student Visa.
In relation to the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, she gave evidence which the Tribunal accepts, that she is close to her sister and that she has been living with her sister and brother in law during the time that she has been in Australia.
She said, and the Tribunal accepts, that she has not been asked to pay board and that the only contribution she has been asked to make is for petrol.
She said that she has made about 4 close friends through work and that they socialise including taking lunches together and doing things like trips to the beach.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant has some incentive to remain in Australia by reason of family and community ties.
In relation to evidence that the student visa program is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration program, towards the end of her evidence the Tribunal directly put to her that some might think she was trying to stay in Australia rather than seeking a relevant education.
She denied that that was the case and said she plans to open a business in the Philippines.
She was then asked why she had said that she needs a visa to do the next part of her study, the beauty therapy course, if she is doing that in the Philippines as she had said.
She was unable to offer an explanation for that apparent inconsistency in her evidence other than to say that she wants to do the beauty therapy course in Australia.
On being asked how long that course would be she replied 2 years. She clarified that she does not propose to return to the Philippines in December this year as she had earlier said but to spend a further 2 years studying here in Australia.
She was then asked whether, after she had done the beauty therapy course she was contemplating applying for any other Australian visas. She said she would do so if one were available and in particular she thought she might apply for a skilled worker visa in massage therapy. She understood that such a visa would entitle her to remain in Australia.
The Tribunal finds that this evidence contradicted the evidence that she had given earlier about her intention to return to the Philippines in December 2019. The Tribunal finds that this evidence suggests strongly that the student visa program is being used by the applicant to circumvent the intentions of the migration program.
On the basis of the same evidence the Tribunal further finds that the applicant is using the Student visa to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.
The Tribunal specifically asked the applicant if she was using the student visa to stay in Australia rather than to seek an education. She disagreed and repeated that she wants to start a business in the Philippines. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evasiveness about the timing of her return to the Philippines and also her intention to consider applying for a permanent visa. The Tribunal rejects the applicant’s assertion that her priority is to return to the Philippines to start a business. .
There is no secondary applicant and factor 11 d is not relevant.
The applicant has lived in Australia for nearly 8 years and has used the qualifications she got here in massage to obtain work.
She gave evidence that she wants the childcare and beauty therapy qualifications to start a business in the Philippines but the Tribunal is not satisfied by her evidence about this.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is well acquainted with the requirements of living in Australia and further that she has been able to use her massage qualifications to obtain work here. The Tribunal further finds that the applicant has already completed nearly ¾ of the childcare diploma and is therefore well acquainted with the course and the education provider.
The Tribunal is directed by Ministerial Directive 69, at paragraph 12, to have regard to a number of factors in considering the value of the course to the applicant’s future.
12. a. requires the Tribunal to have regard to whether the course is consistent with the applicant’s current level of education. As the applicant has no previous training in childcare the Tribunal finds that diploma level studies are consistent with her current level of education.
12. a. also requires the Tribunal to consider whether the course will assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve employment prospects in their home country and in so considering the Tribunal should allow for reasonable changes to career or study pathways.
Much was made in submissions by the applicant’s representative of the submission that changing to a completely new field of study should not of itself justify the refusal of a visa. The Tribunal accepts that that is the case.
On the other hand the Tribunal is not satisfied by the applicant’s evidence about her plans to run a combined childcare and beauty therapy business in the Philippines. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has real plans to open such a business and finds that the childcare course is not likely to assist the applicant’s career in the Philippines.
12. b. directs the Tribunal to consider the relevance of the course to the student’s past or proposed future employment either in their home country or a third country.
If the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant intends to open a combined childcare and beauty therapy business in the Philippines, the course would be relevant to her proposed future work, but the Tribunal is not satisfied that she intends to open such a business and so is not satisfied that the childcare course is relevant to her future employment.
As for the remuneration that the applicant could expect to achieve in the Philippines, the Tribunal notes that the applicant could do no more than say that she might be able to earn more in the Philippines than she does in Australia. This evidence is not convincing and the Tribunal does not accept it.
The Tribunal does not find that the Applicant is likely to earn more in the Philippines than she could in Australia.
Part 14 of Ministerial Direction 69 sets out factors relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of the applicant’s immigration history.
As to factor 14 a. i. the Tribunal heard and accepts evidence from the applicant that she has made previous applications for temporary visas in Australia which were granted and that there are no further applications.
As to factor 14 a. ii., the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that she has not previously applied for visas to other countries.
As to factor 14. b. i. the Tribunal finds that there is no evidence that the applicant has not complied with the conditions of her previous Australian visas.
As to factor 14.b.ii., there is no evidence that the applicant has held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation.
As to factor 14.b.iii., the Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence that she has been in Australia for nearly 8 years in which time she has completed a certificate level course in Aged Care, a certificate course in Massage Therapy, and a Diploma in Aromatherapy. She said that those courses occupied about 5 years of study time. The Tribunal finds that in the time that the applicant has spent studying in Australia it is surprising that she is still pursuing Diploma level courses. In view of the fact that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Childcare course will be of assistance to her in her future the Tribunal finds that the Student Visa may be primarily for maintaining ongoing residence.
Factor 14.b.iv. is not relevant as there is no evidence that the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia and her home country.
The applicant is not a minor and factor 15 is not relevant.
When invited to put any general matters to the Tribunal the applicant had nothing further to add.
Having weighed all of the above evidence and considered the specified factors the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student as required by cl.500.212.
Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
Mark O'Loughlin
Member

Attachment – Direction No.69
DIRECTION NUMBER 69 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS
(Section 499)
I, PETER DUTTON, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Dated: 18 April 2016
Peter Dutton

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
Note: Section 499(1) of the Act empowers the Minister to give a written direction to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions; or the exercise of those powers. Under section 499(2) of the Act, the direction must not be inconsistent with the Act or the Migration Regulations 1994. Under section 499(2A) of the Act, the person or body must comply with the Direction.
Part 1 of Direction No. 69 - Preliminary
Name of Direction
This Direction is Direction No. 69 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.
It may be cited as Direction No. 69.
Commencement
This Direction commences on 1 July 2016.
Interpretation
Act means the Migration Act 1958.
Genuine temporary entrant means a person who satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa or Student Guardian visa applications.
Genuine temporary entrant criterion refers to clause 500.212(a), 500.312(a) and 590.215(a) at Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Home country has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.
Regulations mean the Migration Regulations 1994.
Relative has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.
Spouse has the same meaning as the definition of the term in section 5F of the Act.
Student visa means a Subclass 500 (Student) visa
Student Guardian visa means a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
Application
This Direction applies to delegates performing functions or exercising powers under section 65 of the Act in relation to assessing an applicant’s temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications in Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa application.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for either a Student visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Student Guardian visa.
Preamble
The Australian Government operates a student visa programme that enables people who are not Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents to undertake study in Australia. A person who wants to undertake a course of study under the student visa programme must obtain a student visa before they can commence a course of study in Australia. A successful applicant must be both a genuine temporary entrant and a genuine student.
An applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances that support a genuine intention to temporarily enter and remain in Australia, notwithstanding the potential for this intention to change over time to an intention to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia for an extended period of time or permanently.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
a.the applicant’s circumstances; and
b.the applicant’s immigration history; and
c.if the applicant is a minor — the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
d.any other relevant matter.
This Direction provides guidance to decision makers on what factors require consideration when assessing the above paragraphs a to d, to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily.
Decision makers must take a reasonable and balanced approach between the need to make a timely decision on a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application and the need to identify those applicants who, at time of decision, do not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily
Part 2 of Direction No. 69 - Directions
Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion
1.Decision makers should not use the factors specified in this Direction as a checklist. The listed factors are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
2.Decision makers should assess whether, on balance, the genuine temporary entrant criterion is satisfied, by:
a.considering the applicant against all factors specified in this Direction; and
b.considering any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker).
3.Decision makers may request additional information and/or further evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that they are a genuine temporary entrant, where closer scrutiny of the applicant's circumstances is considered appropriate.
4.Circumstances where further scrutiny may be appropriate include but are not limited to:
a.information in statistical, intelligence and analysis reports on migration fraud and immigration compliance compiled by the department indicates the need for further scrutiny;
b.the applicant or a relative of the applicant has an immigration history of reasonable concern;
c.the applicant intends to study in a field unrelated to their previous studies or employment; and
d.apparent inconsistencies in information provided by the applicant in their Student visa application.
5.An application for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa should be refused if, after weighing up the applicant’s circumstances, immigration history and any other relevant matter, the decision maker is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia.
The applicant’s circumstances
6.Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.
7.For primary applicants of Subclass 500 Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.
8.Weight should be placed on an applicant’s circumstances that indicate that the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is intended primarily for maintaining residence in Australia.
The applicant’s circumstances in their home country
9.When considering the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a.whether the applicant has reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in their home country or region if a similar course is already available there. Decision makers should allow for any reasonable motives established by the applicant;
b.the extent of the applicant’s personal ties to their home country (for example family, community and employment) and whether those circumstances would serve as a significant incentive to return to their home country;
c.economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country. These circumstances may include consideration of the applicant’s circumstances relative to the home country and to Australia;
d.military service commitments that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country; and
e.political and civil unrest in the applicant’s home country. This includes situations of a nature that may induce the applicant to apply for a Student visa or Student Guardian visa as means of obtaining entry to Australia for the purpose of remaining indefinitely. Decision makers should be aware of the changing circumstances in the applicant’s home country and the influence these may have on an applicant’s motivations for applying for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa.
10.Decision makers may have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country.
The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia
11.In considering the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a.The applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. This may include family and community ties;
b.evidence that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme;
c.whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence;
dwhether the primary and secondary applicant(s) have entered into a relationship of concern for a successful Student visa outcome. Where a decision maker determines that an applicant and dependant have contrived their relationship for a successful Student visa outcomes, the decision maker may find that both applicants do not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion; and
e.the applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia and their intended course of study and the associated education provider; including previous study and qualifications, what is a realistic level of knowledge an applicant is expected to know and the level of research the applicant has undertaken into their proposed course of study and living arrangements.
Value of the course to the applicant’s future
12.Decision makers should have regard to the following factors when considering the value of the course to the applicant’s future:
a.whether the student is seeking to undertake a course that is consistent with their current level of education and whether the course will assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve employment prospects in their home country. Decision makers should allow for reasonable changes to career or study pathways; and
b.relevance of the course to the student’s past or proposed future employment either in their home country or a third country; and
c.remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in the home country or a third country, compared with Australia, using the qualifications to be gained from the proposed course of study.
The applicant's immigration history
13.An applicant’s immigration history refers both to their visa and travel history.
14.When considering the applicant’s immigration history, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a.Previous visa applications for Australia or other countries, including:
i.if the applicant previously applied for an Australian temporary or permanent visa, whether those visa applications are yet to be finally determined (within the meaning of subsection 5(9) of the Act), were granted, or grounds on which the application(s) were refused; and
ii.if the applicant has previously applied for visa(s) to other countries, whether the applicant was refused a visa and the circumstances that led to visa refusal.
b.Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:
i.if the applicant previously travelled to Australia, whether they complied with the conditions of their visa and left before their visa ceased, and if not, were there circumstances beyond their control;
ii.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;
iii.the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia and whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence, including whether the applicant has undertaken a series of short, inexpensive courses, or has been onshore for some time without successfully completing a qualification; and
iv.if the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia, whether they complied with the migration laws of that country and the circumstances around any non-compliance
If the applicant is a minor— the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant
15.If the primary or secondary applicant for a Subclass 500 Student visa is a minor, decision makers should have regard to the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant.
Any other relevant matters
16.Decision makers should also have regard to any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia. This includes information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

[2019] AATA 3037

3 June 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Intention

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction