Singh v Minister for Home Affairs

Singh (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs (the respondent) to cancel his student visa. The applicant had been issued with a notice to show cause why his visa should not be cancelled. He responded to this notice, but the respondent determined that the applicant had not provided sufficient information to satisfy the requirements of the notice. Consequently, the respondent cancelled the applicant's visa. The applicant then sought review of this cancellation decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Before the AAT could hear the substantive merits of the review, the applicant made an interlocutory application to the Federal Court seeking to set aside the respondent's decision to cancel his visa. The applicant alleged that the respondent's decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had an arguable case of jurisdictional error in relation to the respondent's decision to cancel his student visa. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the respondent's assessment of the applicant's response to the show cause notice, and the subsequent cancellation of the visa, constituted a failure to exercise the power conferred by the relevant legislation, or an exercise of power in a manner not permitted by law. The applicant contended that the respondent had failed to properly consider his response, thereby engaging in jurisdictional error.

Driver J found that the applicant had not demonstrated an arguable case of jurisdictional error. The Court reasoned that the respondent had considered the applicant's response to the show cause notice and had formed a view that it did not satisfy the requirements. The legislation permitted the respondent to cancel a visa if satisfied that the person had not complied with the requirements of the notice. The Court held that the respondent's assessment, even if arguably incorrect on the merits, did not amount to a failure to exercise the power conferred or an exercise of power in a manner not permitted by law. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no arguable case of jurisdictional error.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.