Mandapati v Minister for Immigration
[2012] FMCA 704
•10 August 2012
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MANDAPATI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2012] FMCA 704 |
| MIGRATION – Migration Review Tribunal – no jurisdictional error identified. |
| Migration Regulations 1994, sch.2, cl.572.223 |
| Applicant: | RAVI KIRAN REDDY MANDAPATI |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | MLG 454 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Riley FM |
| Hearing date: | 10 August 2012 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 10 August 2012 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 10 August 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | The applicant appeared in person |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | The applicant appeared in person |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Liam Brown |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
| Counsel for the Second Respondent: | No appearance |
| Solicitors for the Second Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application filed on 20 April 2012 be dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of the application fixed in the sum of $6,471.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 454 of 2012
| RAVI KIRAN REDDY MANDAPATI |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)
This is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal.
The applicant applied for a student visa. The Tribunal ascertained the relevant provisions that needed to be satisfied by the applicant to meet the criteria for such a visa. Relevantly, the applicant needed to show that he had adequate funds for the period of the course that he was planning to undertake.
The Tribunal looked at the evidence the applicant provided about his access to funds. On the papers, the Tribunal formed a view that the evidence provided by the applicant was insufficient, partly because it related to a period 12 months before the matter came before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal sent the applicant a letter explaining that issue and inviting the applicant to provide more current material.
The applicant attended the hearing before the Tribunal. He did not provide more current material.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal considered that the applicant had failed to satisfy an essential requirement of cl.572.223 of
sch.2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision that was under review.
The applicant sought review in this court. In his application he said the grounds of the application dated 20 April 2012 were:
Hoping that everything is true to my knowledge and hoping I will be granted a visa.
In his affidavit sworn on 13 April 2012 in support of the application, the applicant said:
I hold an immense faith in the judicial system of Australia and hope justice will be done in this case.
The applicant was required by orders made on 30 May 2012 by the registrar to file any written submissions by 16 July 2012. He did not do so.
The applicant attended the court today for the hearing of his matter. The court explained the nature of jurisdictional error to him.
The applicant said that his only intention is to complete his course. He said he needed one and a half months and would like a visa for that period of time. He told the court that he does not want to reside permanently in Australia. He said he has completed three quarters of his commercial cookery course and simply wants to be able to complete that course and then go home to India.
The court told the applicant that what he had said did not indicate or point to any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. The applicant said he had nothing to add.
I have read the decision of the Tribunal. I am unable to detect any jurisdictional error in it. This court has no power to grant a visa. In all these circumstances, there is no basis that I can perceive to do anything other than dismiss the application. There will be an order to that effect.
I certify that the preceding thirteen (13) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Riley FM
Date: 16 August 2012
0
0
1