Sapkota v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Sapkota against a decision of the Minister for Immigration, which had affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant him a student visa. The dispute centred on whether the Migration Review Tribunal (Tribunal) had committed jurisdictional error in its review of the visa refusal. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia before Judge Cameron.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant alleged that the Tribunal had taken an irrelevant consideration into account, failed to take a relevant consideration into account, and failed to consider all of the applicant's claims when reviewing the delegate's decision. The core of the visa refusal was the applicant's alleged failure to demonstrate sufficient financial capacity to support his studies in Australia, as required by clause 572.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations.

Judge Cameron considered the applicant's visa application and the subsequent review by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had noted that the applicant had been enrolled in a course that was cancelled for unsatisfactory progress and that he had studied for only a portion of the time he had been in Australia. In response, the applicant's migration agent explained that the applicant had discontinued his studies after the initial visa refusal, citing shock and an inability to focus, and also a concern about wasted funds if the Tribunal affirmed the refusal. The agent also provided a new offer of enrolment. The Court examined whether the Tribunal's consideration of the applicant's study history and the reasons for discontinuing studies constituted jurisdictional error, particularly in light of the applicant's submissions and the new enrolment offer.