Kaur v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Ms Kaur, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 3 February 2010 affirming a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Minister) not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2007 as the holder of a student visa and applied for a further student visa in 2008. The delegate of the Minister refused the application, finding that Ms Kaur did not meet the criteria in relation to evidence of her English language proficiency. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision and the applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.

The applicant's grounds for review were (1) that the Tribunal erred in law when it sought to correct factual errors by means of a corrigendum, (2) that the Tribunal erred in law when it allowed a Tribunal clerk to encroach upon the member's jurisdictional domain in that a clerk decided what should be done by the Tribunal in the light of legally significant errors and informed the applicant's representative of what the Tribunal would do, the Tribunal ultimately doing exactly what the clerk had determined, and (3) that the Tribunal erred in law by not inviting the applicant to a further hearing on the basis of the error in the Tribunal's decision.

In relation to ground (1) the court found that the Tribunal was not empowered to issue a corrigendum correcting a factual error but the Tribunal was not functus officio because there was no jurisdictional error in the decision as it stood on 3 February 2010. In relation to ground (2) the court found that the Tribunal was not functus officio because there was no jurisdictional error in the decision as it stood on 3 February 2010. The court found that a Tribunal officer expressing a view about what a Tribunal will do was not jurisdictional error. In relation to ground (3) the court found that the Tribunal was not functus officio because there was no jurisdictional error in the decision as it stood on 3 February 2010. The court found that the Tribunal was not obliged to invite the applicant to a further hearing on the basis of the error in the Tribunal's decision.

The application for review was dismissed. The applicant pay the costs of the Minister fixed in the sum of $4,900.