Singh v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicants, Satwinder Singh, Ranjana Ranjana, and Ruhani Chander, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) that affirmed a delegate's refusal to grant Mr. Singh a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 572) visa. Mr. Singh, an Indian national, had applied for the visa to undertake further studies in Australia, with his wife and child included as family members. The delegate had refused the visa on the grounds that Mr. Singh was not a genuine applicant for temporary entry and stay as a student, failing to meet clause 572.223(1)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, finding that Mr. Singh did not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily.

The central legal issue before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia was whether the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error in its decision-making process. Specifically, the applicants contended that the Tribunal denied them procedural fairness. This was primarily argued on the basis that the Tribunal made adverse findings regarding the authenticity of documents submitted by Mr. Singh without affording him an opportunity to comment on the specific concerns or to provide further explanation or evidence. The applicants also raised grounds relating to the Tribunal's consideration of completed courses and the alleged failure to provide an opportunity to submit additional evidence.

Justice Kendall found that the Tribunal had indeed committed a jurisdictional error by failing to accord the applicants procedural fairness. The Court reasoned that the Tribunal's adverse findings concerning the authenticity of documents from the Technical College of Western Australia, as detailed in paragraph [17] of its decision, were not put to Mr. Singh for comment. The Court relied on the principles established in *WAJR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs* [2004] FCA 106, which mandates that a tribunal must provide an applicant with particulars of any information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming a decision, and invite the applicant to comment on it, unless specific exceptions apply. The Court noted that the Tribunal had expressed "grave doubts" about the veracity of the documents and had not given Mr. Singh an opportunity to address these specific concerns, thereby failing to comply with section 424A of the Migration Act 1958.

Consequently, the Court ordered that a writ of certiorari issue quashing the Tribunal's decision of 27 February 2018. Furthermore, a writ of mandamus was issued, directing the Tribunal to re-determine the applicants' application for review of the delegate's decision according to law.