Sandhu v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This case concerned an application for judicial review by Keshveen Kaur Sandhu against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought review of the Tribunal's decision to affirm a delegate's refusal to grant her a Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa. The refusal was based on the applicant failing to meet the "Australian study requirement" under the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), specifically because the qualification she relied upon, a Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice, was not considered an "eligible Australian Qualification".

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error in affirming the visa refusal. This required determining whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant regulations concerning the Australian study requirement, particularly regarding the definition of an "eligible Australian Qualification" and the criteria for a "registered course". The applicant also raised grounds relating to the Tribunal's consideration of evidence, the alleged overlooking of arguments, and the fairness of the online hearing process.

Kendall J found that the Tribunal had not committed jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had correctly identified that the applicant needed to satisfy the Australian study requirement, which included completing a "registered course". While the Tribunal found that the applicant's Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice could be considered a "degree" under the Regulations, it ultimately determined that the specific course undertaken by the applicant online in Perth was not a "registered course" as defined by the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000. The Court noted that the Tribunal had carefully considered the applicant's arguments, including the relationship between her Bachelor of Laws and the Graduate Diploma, and had provided detailed reasons for its findings. The Court also dismissed the applicant's grounds concerning the alleged failure to consider evidence and the fairness of the hearing, finding no evidence of jurisdictional error in these respects.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.