Patel v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

PATEL & ANOR v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2012] FMCA 870

MIGRATION – Judicial review of Migration Review Tribunal decision –Student (Class TU) Subclass 572 visa – financial capacity requirement – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Migration Regulations1994 (Cth), reg.2.07AO, cl.572.223 of Schedule 2, cls.5A404, 5A405, 5A406 of Schedule 5A

SIDHU v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2011] FMCA 890

First Applicant: SUNILKUMAR NARSINHBHAI PATEL

Second Applicant: HASUMATI SUNILKUMAR PATEL

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 530 of 2012

Judgment of: Hartnett FM

Hearing date: 6 September 2012

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 24 September 2012

REPRESENTATION

The First Applicant: In person

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Gangemi

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application filed 7 May 2012 is dismissed.

2. The first applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,471.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 530 of 2012

SUNILKUMAR NARSINHBHAI PATEL

First Applicant

HASUMATI SUNILKUMAR PATEL

Second Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) dated 17 April 2012, in which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant the first applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa. 

2. The application was filed on 7 May 2012.  The grounds of the application are as follows:

   “1. I applied for student visa subclass 572 then on [March] 2011.

   2. Then I [applied] to MRT for review of that decision, on 02/05/2011.

   3. I think MRT Tribunal and department of immigration did not look [at] my situation.”

3. The first applicant (hereinafter ‘the applicant’) filed an affidavit in support of his application sworn by him on 7 May 2012.  In that affidavit, he said, in effect, no more than:

   “[I come] in Australia on student visa. [Then] My visa was refused by department of immigration and citizenship.  [I] have also [applied] to MRT.  I am not happy with these decision”

4. A court book was filed by the first respondent which contained the decision record of the Tribunal, amongst other documents.

5. The applicant is a male citizen of India.  His wife, the second applicant, was included as a dependent family member in the application for visas which was lodged onshore on 9 March 2011.  On 19 April 2011, a delegate refused the visa application and on 2 May 2011, the applicants applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision.

Legislative context

1. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas because the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met an essential requirement of Clause 572.223 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations1994 (Cth) (‘the Regulations’).

2. The Tribunal commenced its assessment of the applicant’s…