KHOKAR v Minister for Immigration

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Sunny Khokar (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal's decision affirmed a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs' (the Minister) refusal to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa. The application was brought under section 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), requiring the applicant to demonstrate jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error in affirming the delegate's decision. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the Tribunal had identified the wrong issue, ignored relevant material, relied on irrelevant material, failed to follow mandatory procedures, exhibited bias, or made an illogical, irrational, or unreasonable decision. The Court's role was limited to identifying such errors, not reviewing the merits of the Tribunal's decision or granting the visa.

The Court found that the Tribunal had not committed jurisdictional error. The Tribunal's decision focused on whether the applicant met the enrolment requirement under clause 500.211(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) at the time of the Tribunal's decision. The applicant had informed the Tribunal that he did not hold a current Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE). Despite being given an opportunity to provide evidence of enrolment, the applicant failed to do so, and confirmed in sworn evidence that no current enrolment existed. The Tribunal correctly applied the law by finding that the applicant did not meet the primary criteria for the visa. The applicant's grounds of review were unparticularised, and he was unable to articulate any specific jurisdictional error, instead expressing concerns about the delay in the review process and a desire to prove his status as a genuine student.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $5,000.