Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm the refusal of a visa to an Indian national. The applicant had applied for a visa on the basis of working as a Pastry Cook, providing a reference from Mr K of Bakers Hut and a skills assessment from Trades Recognition Australia. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection had raised concerns that the applicant may have provided a "bogus document" under section 5 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically relating to the work reference.

The applicant sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision on two grounds. Firstly, the applicant contended that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate particulars of the evidence of Mr K, given in a separate proceeding (Proceeding 1215933), to the applicant, in breach of section 359A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Secondly, the applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to conduct the review reasonably and in accordance with Part 5 of the Act, specifically by transposing evidence and findings from another matter without proper consideration. The evidence of Mr K, given in Proceeding 1215933 concerning persons who had completed more than 900 hours work at Bakers Hut, was central to the Tribunal's decision to refuse the visa.

Blake J dismissed the application for review. The Court found that the evidence of Mr K, as extracted from an audio recording of Proceeding 1215933, did not establish that the applicant had provided a bogus document. Mr K's evidence indicated that he had agreed to take on one to two voluntary students to assist with cleaning and other tasks at his 24-hour bakery, and that the applicant, Jay Sharma, was one of these students. Mr K could not recall the names of the first two students, but stated that Jay was his third or fourth student. Crucially, Mr K's evidence did not suggest that the applicant had been paid for his work or that the reference provided was false. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Tribunal's reliance on Mr K's evidence to find that the applicant had provided a bogus document was not supported by the material before it. The applicant's grounds of review were not made out.