Pandit (Migration) - [2024] AATA 145

PANDIT (MIGRATION) [2024] AATA 145 (10 JANUARY 2024)

Applicant:Mr Asim Pandit
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2308545

Tribunal:General Member P Maishman
Place:Perth
Date:10 January 2024

CORRIGENDUM

Date of Corrigendum: 8 October 2025

Pursuant to s 114 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the following alteration is made to the decision dated 10 January 2024:

Paragraph 5 is altered to read: For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be remitted for reconsideration.

Statement made on 08 October 2025 at 4:22pm

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:  Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Asim Pandit
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Ashutosh Sharma (MARN: 1682588)
CASE NUMBER:  2308545
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2021/1723604
MEMBER:  P. Maishman
DATE:  10 January 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa:
·Public Interest Criterion 4020 for the purposes of cl 485.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 10 January 2024 at 2:29pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – bogus document – PTE Academic Test Score report – relevant visa application withdrawn – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 485.216; Schedule 4, PIC 4020

CASES

Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35

Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274

Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 1 June 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 3 September 2021. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 485.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the delegate says there is evidence the applicant gave the Minister a bogus document in relation to a visa which the applicant held in the 12 months before this application.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 January 2024 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

The Tribunal had before it a copy of the Department’s file.
The applicant gave the Tribunal a copy of the delegate’s decision record which outlines the history of the application. Relevantly, the delegate says the applicant applied for a Student (Subclass 500) visa on 4 June 2021 and submitted a PTE Academic Test Score report indicating he achieved an overall score of 61. The Department conducted internal checks to confirm the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Pandit (Migration)

Details

AGLC: Pandit (Migration) [2024] AATA 145
Case: [2024] AATA 145
Decision Date: 10 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr. Pandit concerning a decision made under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) regarding a Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) visa. The core of the dispute involved a PTE Academic Test Score report, which the Department of Home Affairs had assessed as a bogus document.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the PTE Academic Test Score report was indeed a bogus document, as determined by the Department. This determination had significant implications for Mr. Pandit's eligibility for the visa.

The Court found that the Department's assessment of the PTE Academic Test Score report as bogus was not supported by sufficient evidence. It noted that the visa application in question had been withdrawn prior to the Department making its decision. Consequently, the Court concluded that the decision under review was affected by jurisdictional error. The Court therefore remitted the matter to the Department for reconsideration.

Orders