Navjot Kaur & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2014] HCASL 169

NAVJOT KAUR & ORS

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2014] HCASL 169
S91/2014

1. The applicants are citizens of India.  They applied for Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visas on 26 October 2009.  The second and third applicants applied as members of the first applicant's family unit.  On 15 September 2011, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the visas.

2. On 5 December 2012, the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision. The Tribunal found that the first applicant had provided a work reference to Trades Recognition Australia ("TRA") that was material to her application and contained false or misleading information. The Tribunal was therefore not satisfied that the first applicant met public interest criterion 4020 ("PIC 4020"), as required by cl 485.224 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) at the time of the delegate's decision.

3. On 23 August 2013, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Driver J) dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal's decision.  Driver J held that, because TRA had been properly specified as a relevant assessing authority at the time of the Tribunal's decision, the false or misleading information in the work reference supplied to TRA was material to the first applicant's visa application.

4. On 27 March 2014, the Federal Court of Australia (Wigney J) dismissed the applicants' appeal.  Wigney J held that, on any view of PIC 4020, it was open to the Tribunal to find that the first applicant had failed to satisfy the criterion.  His Honour held that, at the time the Tribunal made its decision, the false or misleading information in the work reference was relevant to a criterion for the grant of a visa.  This was so even though TRA was not a relevant assessment authority when the first applicant provided the work reference to it.

5. The applicants now seek special leave to appeal to this Court.  The applicants' written case does not advance any question of law which would warrant the grant of special leave.  There is insufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Federal Court's decision.  Special leave is refused.

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

S.M. Kiefel
11 September 2014 P.A. Keane