Singh & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

In the High Court of Australia, Mr H. Singh, appearing in person, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) which affirmed the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's refusal of Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visas for himself and a second plaintiff whose application was dependent on his. The plaintiffs contended that the MRT denied them natural justice by refusing an adjournment and proceeding to hear their application in their absence, following an assault on Mr Singh. The Minister argued that even with an adjournment, the plaintiffs would not have satisfied the visa requirements.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the MRT had erred in law by refusing to grant an adjournment, thereby denying the plaintiffs natural justice, and whether this alleged error, if it existed, would have made any difference to the outcome given the plaintiffs' failure to meet the visa criteria at the time of the MRT hearing. A further issue concerned the timeliness of the application for judicial review, which was filed significantly out of time.

The High Court reasoned that the MRT had not erred because the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the competent English language requirement for the visa. This failure was evident at the time of the MRT hearing, and therefore, even if an adjournment had been granted, the outcome would have been the same. The Court noted that the requirement for competent English must be met within the two years immediately preceding the application, a condition that was not met by Mr Singh at the relevant times. The Court also observed that previous applications for judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court and an application for leave to appeal in the Federal Court had also been dismissed.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court found that the application did not disclose an arguable basis for the relief sought and that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate any error in the MRT's determination or the subsequent court decisions. The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the Minister.