Sapkota v Minister for Immigration

In *Sapkota v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal. The central dispute concerned the applicant's contention that the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) had been misconstrued, specifically regarding the interrelationship between regulation 2.03(2) and Schedule 2 of the Regulations. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia before Judge Burchardt.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether regulation 2.03(2) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* operated in conjunction with Schedule 2 of the Regulations in the manner argued by the applicant. This involved determining how the provisions applied to the applicant's specific visa subclass.

Judge Burchardt reasoned that the applicant's argument failed to acknowledge a crucial point: both subclass 572 and subclass 573 visas are classified as Schedule 2 visas under the Regulations. This fundamental oversight meant that the applicant's interpretation of the interrelationship between regulation 2.03(2) and Schedule 2 was incorrect. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs, fixed at $6,646.