Mineshkumar PRAVINBHAI Barevadiya & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] HCASL 237

MINESHKUMAR PRAVINBHAI BAREVADIYA & ANOR
v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2015] HCASL 237
M202/2015

1. The applicants apply for special leave to appeal against the orders of the Federal Court of Australia (North J) dismissing an appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Jones).

2. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the applicants' application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("MRT").  The MRT affirmed the refusal by a delegate of the first respondent to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas, on the ground that they did not meet the relevant financial capacity requirements.  Specifically, the applicants failed to demonstrate a three-month saving history of funds totalling $31,265 for the period immediately prior to their visa application on 9 July 2013.

3. The applicants do not have legal representation and their application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

4. The applicants' proposed ground of appeal contends error arising from the MRT's asserted failure to comply with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). Section 424A applies to decisions relating to the grant or cancellation of protection visas. The same ground was not pressed before North J. His Honour treated the applicants' complaint as raising the MRT's asserted failure to comply with the requirements of s 359A of the Act. Section 359A imposes a similar obligation to the obligation imposed on the Refugee Review Tribunal under s 424A, to give an applicant clear particulars of any information that the MRT considers would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. His Honour found that the material relied on by the MRT was within the exception for which s 359A(4)(b) of the Act provides. The applicants' unparticularised assertion of a breach of s 424A is to be understood as the assertion of a breach of s 359A. However, nothing in the material filed in support of the application calls into question the correctness of the decision below. If special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success.

5. The application is dismissed.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.   

V.M. Bell
17 December 2015 S.J. Gageler