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

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed the refusal of a Student visa. The first applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, had applied for a Student visa to undertake a Certificate IV and Diploma of Information Technology. The visa was initially refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs on the basis that the applicant failed to meet the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) requirements. The applicant subsequently applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision.

The legal issues before the Federal Circuit Court were whether the Tribunal had made an arguable jurisdictional error in affirming the delegate's decision. Specifically, the Court was required to consider the applicant's contention that the Tribunal failed to consider "all aspects" of his claims, and whether the Tribunal erred in affirming the refusal on the basis that the applicant did not meet the enrolment criteria under cl 500.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).

The Court found that the applicant had conceded during the Tribunal hearing that he was not enrolled in a registered course of study and had not taken any steps to enrol. The Tribunal had invited the applicant to provide information regarding his enrolment and had notified him that failure to be enrolled in an approved course of study was a ground for affirming the delegate's decision. The Court concluded that the Tribunal was entitled to affirm the decision on the basis of the applicant's failure to meet the mandatory enrolment requirement, particularly given his own admissions. The Court determined that the applicant's sole ground of review was without merit and did not disclose an arguable jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the application was dismissed under rule 44.12 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), and the applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.