Kaur v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

In *Kaur v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*, Humphreys J of the Federal Circuit Court considered an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicants sought to have the AAT's decision, which affirmed the delegate's refusal to grant them Student visas, quashed. The AAT had affirmed the delegate's decision after the applicants failed to provide requested information, specifically proof of enrolment in an approved course of study, by the stipulated deadline.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the AAT's decision involved jurisdictional error. The applicants' grounds of judicial review were largely descriptive of the background and impact of the visa refusal, with one ground vaguely alleging a failure to consider information. However, grounds seven and eight were asserted as jurisdictional error without any supporting particulars, rendering them impossible for the respondent to address.

Humphreys J reasoned that the applicants bore the onus of establishing jurisdictional error. The Court found that the grounds of review, at their highest, did not disclose any jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court agreed with the respondent that grounds one to four and six, along with ground nine, were merely background or pleas for consideration of the personal impact of the refusal. Ground five, alleging a failure to consider information, was dismissed as the AAT had considered the matter and the lack of evidence regarding enrolment in an approved course. Crucially, grounds seven and eight, which asserted jurisdictional error, were deemed misconceived due to the absence of particulars, effectively inviting the Court to identify the error on the applicants' behalf. The Court noted that for a Student visa to be granted, compliance with clause 500.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994 was required, which included evidence of enrolment in an approved course, and no such evidence was presented to the AAT.

Consequently, the Court was satisfied that the application for judicial review was misconceived and that it was appropriate to make an order dismissing the application pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001.