Singh v Minister for Immigration

Singh (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning his visa application. The core of the dispute revolved around the Tribunal's interpretation and application of the definition of "competent English" as set out in regulation 1.15C of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) (the Regulations). The applicant contended that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of his English language proficiency.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the Tribunal had incorrectly treated the definition of "competent English" in regulation 1.15C as an exhaustive definition. A secondary issue concerned the validity of the regulation itself, specifically whether an instrument made under regulation 1.15C, which purportedly nominated a non-existent language test and score, rendered the regulation invalid.

Justice Manousaridis reasoned that regulation 1.15C did not provide an exhaustive definition of "competent English." Instead, it established a minimum standard, allowing for other ways to demonstrate competence. The Court found that the Tribunal had erred by failing to consider whether the applicant had met this minimum standard or demonstrated competence through other means. Regarding the validity of the regulation, the Court held that the existence of an invalid instrument made under the regulation did not invalidate the regulation itself, as the regulation remained operative independently of that instrument.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal be set aside and remitted to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law.