Parmar v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PARMAR & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2020] FCCA 1419

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Review of administrative appeals decision – whether decision affected by jurisdictional error – jurisdictional error not established – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

First Applicant: VIJAYKUMAR BALDEVDAS PARMAR

Second Applicant: DAYA VIJAYKUMAR PARMAR

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: BRG 48 of 2019

Judgment of: Judge Vasta

Hearing date: 27 April 2020

Date of Last Submission: 27 April 2020

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 27 April 2020

REPRESENTATION

First Applicant in person

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. That the name of the First Respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs”.

2. That the Application filed 18 January 2019 is dismissed.

3. That the Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $5,000.

IT IS NOTED:

A.    That the Court will not provide a written version of the reasons for judgment delivered today, unless an appeal has been lodged and the Court has received a request in writing from either party seeking that written reasons be produced.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT BRISBANE

BRG 48 of 2019

VIJAYKUMAR BALDEVDAS PARMAR

First Applicant

DAYA VIJAYKUMAR PARMAR

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex Tempore)

1. On 17 December 2018, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”) affirmed a decision not to grant the Applicant a student visa.  The Applicant had a secondary Applicant, whom would seem to be his wife, who was a family member of a person who was seeking a visa.  Her claim rises or falls upon the claim of the Applicant, Mr Parmar.  The Applicant asked this Court, on 18 January 2019, to review the decision. 

2. The background to the matter is this.  The Applicant was born in India in 1982.  He arrived in Australia on 28 June 2013 on a subclass 573 student visa.  He has not left Australia since his arrival in June 2013. 

3. The AAT had to look at whether the Applicant was a genuine temporary student; that is, did he genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily.  The Applicant told the Tribunal that, in India, he was employed and rose to the rank of assistant store manager at Big Bazaar, which is a chain of superstores owned by Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited. 

4. The Applicant had ambitions to go higher, but was of the view that, with a qualification from overseas, especially in Australia, he would be able to achieve those ambitions.  He attempted to start a Bachelor of Business degree at James Cook University, but found that degree too hard. 

5. He left that course and enrolled in business and management courses at Spencer College.  He did not complete those diplomas because there was a problem between himself and Spencer College.  The…