SINGH v Minister for Immigration

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2011] FMCA 923

MIGRATION – Review of Migration Review Tribunal – student visa – application dismissed – no matter of principle.

Applicant: CHARANJIT SINGH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent: MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 1033 of 2011

Judgment of: Riethmuller FM

Hearing date: 7 November 2011

Date of Last Submission: 7 November 2011

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 7 November 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appearing in person

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms Whittemore

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The application filed on 25 July 2011 be dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed at $3,500.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1033 of 2011

CHARANJIT SINGH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(as revised from transcript)

1. On 12 August 2010 the applicant applied for a student visa.  This application was refused on 8 November 2010.  The Minister’s delegate found that the applicant had failed to provide evidence of funds required under the visa conditions sufficient to support his stay in Australia.  On 24 November 2010 he applied for a review of that decision to the Migration Review Tribunal.  The issue before the Tribunal was whether or not the applicant could meet the financial capacity requirements.  The purpose of these requirements is clearly to ensure that students who come to Australia have sufficient funds to support themselves for their period of study. 

2. The Tribunal invited the applicant to attend and give evidence, or provide additional information, before the Tribunal.  The applicant did not respond and did not attend a hearing.  The applicant did provide further documentary material.  His agent provided a copy of an agreement described as a Sale of Land agreement and an email from the agent claiming that his father said that the balance of the funds belonged to his father and had not been borrowed from anywhere. 

3. The difficulty the applicant faced was that originally inquiries by an agent of the Australian High Commission concluded that the funds appeared to have come from a commission agent.  When the person from the Australian High Commission spoke to the applicant’s father he could not remember when he had sold the land that he claimed he sold, nor could he produce a document showing the registration of any land or land sale.

4. The officer from the Australian High Commission advised that land sales have to be registered in India and that loans from commission agents are not acceptable because they are repayable on demand and commission agents are not legally authorised to lend money in India.  As the Tribunal pointed out at paragraph [47]:

   [47]  The Tribunal therefore finds that these funds were borrowed from a source that may demand repayment at any time.  The source of funds is not acceptable and the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant will have access…