SIDHU v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 219

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SIDHU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 219

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for judicial review of Migration Review Tribunal – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Applicant: RAMANJOT SIDHU

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: ADG 205 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Simpson

Hearing date: 7 February 2014

Date of Last Submission: 7 February 2014

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 7 February 2014

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr P d'Assumpcao

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitors

ORDERS

1. The name of the first respondent be changed from Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.

2. The application filed on 27 June 2013 be dismissed.

3. The applicant do pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of SIX THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX DOLLARS ($6,646).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ADELAIDE

ADG 205 of 2013

RAMANJOT SIDHU

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Settled ex-tempore reasons)

1. I have before me an application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 18 June 2013.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship not to grant the applicant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class BC) Graduate visa (“the visa”). 

2. The applicant’s sole ground of application is in the following terms:

   “I would like to apply for my case to be heard in court so that I get a chance to say my side of points which I did not get chance to explain with DIAC and then MRT.  Both institutions have refused my visa application for subclass 485 visa because I could not give them sufficient evidence to prove that my English language skills fulfil visa criteria.  I am in the process of achieving the required results.”

3. The terms of the ground reveal that the applicant misunderstands the role of this Court in deciding matters such as this.  The ground indicates that the applicant believes that this Court can make a decision about whether or not the applicant should be entitled to the visa sought on the basis of the merits of his case.  In matters such as this, the Court’s role is to decide whether or not the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error.

4. I have heard what the applicant had to say today and, from what he told me in Court, he still believed, until I told him otherwise, that he could come up with the required evidence of English competency and get the appropriate order from this Court.  He has again been informed that that is not something this Court can do.

5. The applicant does not allege that the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error.  During argument, I took him to the pages in the green book that contain the reasons of the Tribunal and asked him to identify, if he could, an error that amounted to a jurisdictional error.  I explained to him what was meant by “jurisdictional error”.  The applicant was not able to point to any jurisdictional error.

6. It is clear, in my view, that the application should be dismissed. 

7. In deciding that the application should be dismissed, I have considered carefully whether or not there is any other basis for quashing the Tribunal’s decision, whether it is pleaded or not.

8. The reasons given by the Tribunal on 20 June 2013 do not reveal any jurisdictional error.  In my view, the application must be dismissed with costs.

9. I make the orders to be found at the beginning of these reasons.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Simpson

Associate: 

Date: 13 February 2014