FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1863
Appeal from: Singh v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 1675 File number: SAD 145 of 2019 Judge: COLVIN J Date of judgment: 12 November 2019 Catchwords: MIGRATION - appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court dismissing application for judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming the delegate's decision to refuse the appellant's application for a student visa - where appellant sought leave to raise grounds not before the primary judge - where grounds lacked merit - application for leave to raise each new ground refused - where the Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to comply with the requirements of a previous visa - whether the Tribunal did not explain the consequences of the appellant's previous breach - whether the Tribunal's findings gave rise to procedural unfairness - appeal dismissed Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 359AA, 499 Cases cited: Chetcuti v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 112
CHZ19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 914
Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Jan v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1837
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA [2019] HCA 3
SZRUR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 146; (2013) 216 FCR 445
SZVCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 24; (2016) 238 FCR 15
Date of hearing: 12 November 2019 Registry: Western Australia Division: General Division National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 39 Counsel for the Appellant: The Appellant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms J Battiste Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice save as to costs ORDERS
SAD 145 of 2019 BETWEEN: GURPREET SINGH
Appellant
AND: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 NOVEMBER 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant do pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal to be fixed in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of any GST.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COLVIN J:
Since 2008, Mr Gurpreet Singh has lived in Australia in order to undertake courses of study. For that purpose he has sought and obtained a succession of student visas. The first student visa was granted in 2008, the next in 2011 and the next (a graduate visa to get work experience in the field of completed study) in 2013.
In 2015, Mr Singh applied for a temporary student visa (subclass 572), a class of visa that closed for further application from 1 July 2016. The application was refused. He sought review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Singh v Minister for Home Affairs and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] FCA 1863
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the grounds raised in the appeal had merit and whether leave should be granted to raise them. The appellant sought to introduce new grounds that were not previously considered by the primary judge. The court needed to assess whether these new grounds had any substance and if the Tribunal's findings were procedurally fair. Furthermore, the court had to decide if the Tribunal properly considered the appellant's completed courses and the alleged fraud by the migration agent.
The court found that the grounds of appeal were without merit. The Tribunal had considered and rejected the allegation of fraud by the migration agent as baseless. The court also noted that the Tribunal had taken into account the appellant's completed courses, even though it had not considered that the appellant had not completed all the courses he enrolled in. Additionally, the court held that the Tribunal adequately explained the consequences of the appellant's previous visa breach. Consequently, the grounds of appeal were dismissed, and leave to raise new grounds was refused.
The court dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Singh to pay the Minister's costs of the appeal, which were fixed at $5,000 inclusive of any GST. The decision underscores the importance of raising all relevant grounds before the primary judge and the court's reluctance to entertain new grounds that were not previously considered.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant do pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal to be fixed in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of any GST.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The ground was not raised before the primary judge. It is without merit and I refuse leave to raise the ground.Ground 7: Alleged fraud by migration agent Ground 7 alleges that there was a failure by the Tribunal to consider submissions that the migration agent had 'played a fraud' with Mr Singh by getting him to sign a blank visa application. The primary judge correctly found that the Tribunal considered this matter and rejected it as baseless and therefore the ground had no substance: at [34]. No error has been demonstrated in this reasoning and this ground should not be upheld.Ground 8: Alleged failure to give weight to his completed courses The error alleged by ground 8 is that the primary judge did not give any weight to the fact that all the courses enrolled in by Mr Singh were studied and completed. This was not a matter that was raised by any ground of review before the primary judge so there could be no error in failing to consider that matter. If the ground is a complaint that the Tribunal did not give weight to this matter then it is without merit. The Tribunal took into account Mr Singh's completed courses. It is to be noted that the evidence showed that Mr Singh had not completed all the courses in which he had enrolled. However, that was not an aspect considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, ground 8 should not be upheld.Conclusion For reasons I have given, the grounds of appeal should be dismissed. After hearing the parties as to costs, I made orders for costs to be fixed in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of any GST.