Mohammed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs

The case of Mohammed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs involves two appeals against judgments of a single judge of the Federal Court, which had dismissed applications for judicial review. The first application was under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), seeking review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal that affirmed the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's Student (Temporary) visa. The second application challenged a decision that the appellant's application for a subclass 136 visa was invalid due to s 48 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The appellant, a national of Bangladesh, had arrived in Australia on a student visa and subsequently breached condition 8105 of the Migration Regulations 1994, leading to the cancellation of his visa. The appellant argued that despite working more than the permitted hours, he was only paid for 20 hours per week and did so to gain additional knowledge and experience for his qualifications.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal's decision to affirm the Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's visa was correct, and whether the appellant's visa application was invalid under s 48 of the Act. The court needed to examine the evidence provided by the appellant regarding his employment and whether the work was specified as a requirement of his course. The Tribunal had found that the appellant had worked in excess of 40 hours per fortnight on fifteen occasions, which was beyond the ambit of condition 8105(1) of the Regulations, as the work was not specified as a requirement of his course when the course particulars were entered in the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students.

In dismissing the appeals, the court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the appellant had breached condition 8105 of the Regulations and that his work was not specified as a requirement of his course. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was supported by the evidence and that the appellant's submissions did not establish a breach of the visa conditions. The court also found that the appellant's application for a subclass 136 visa was indeed invalid under s 48 of the Act. The court concluded that the appellant's appeals were without merit and dismissed both appeals, ordering the appellant to pay the respondent's costs.