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

The applicant, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant him a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa. The applicant had initially been granted a subsequent entrant visa based on his marriage, but this visa was later cancelled due to the breakdown of his relationship. He then applied for the student visa based on his enrolment in vocational courses. The delegate refused the visa, finding the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant, and the Tribunal affirmed this decision.

The core legal issues before the Federal Court were whether the Tribunal failed to assess relevant information, acted unreasonably, or should have adjourned the hearing to allow the applicant time to enrol in a course of study. The applicant contended that his enrolments were cancelled because his bridging visa lacked study rights and that the Tribunal did not adequately consider his circumstances or provide him a fair opportunity to re-enrol.

Justice Kendall found that the Tribunal had not committed jurisdictional error. The Court noted that the Tribunal repeatedly acknowledged the cancellation of the applicant's enrolments due to his bridging visa status but correctly concluded that this did not alter the fact that the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course of study at the time of the Tribunal's decision, a requirement for the visa. The Tribunal had also put the applicant on notice, both in writing and at the hearing, about the necessity of current enrolment and the potential consequences of failing to meet this requirement. The Court further observed that while the Tribunal had the power to adjourn, there was no legal obligation to do so, and the applicant had not requested an adjournment or further time to enrol. The applicant's decision not to re-enrol was attributed to his unwillingness to pay further course fees.

Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.