Mohammed (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Mohammed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Cth) which affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant Mr Mohammed a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the Tribunal had erred in law by affirming the delegate's decision. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the Tribunal had failed to provide Mr Mohammed with adequate notice of its intention to affirm the delegate's decision, and whether it had failed to afford him a reasonable opportunity to respond to the information that led to that conclusion.

The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in law. It reasoned that the Tribunal had provided Mr Mohammed with a notification of its intention to affirm the delegate's decision, which included a clear statement that no further information was required from him. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that Mr Mohammed was not currently enrolled in a course of study and had not provided any response to the Tribunal's earlier communication. The court affirmed the principle that a tribunal is not obliged to provide a further opportunity to respond when it has already given notice of its intention to affirm a decision and the applicant has failed to provide a response.

The appeal was dismissed.