Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1565
File number(s):
ADG 84 of 2022
Judgment of:
JUDGE GERRARD
Date of judgment:
26 September 2025
Catchwords:
MIGRATION – student visa – decision of the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to consider evidence – whether the Tribunal breached s 359AA – whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant material – whether inconsistent findings – no evidence – relevance of PAM guidelines – no jurisdictional error established – application dismissed
VAF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 206 ALR 471
Division:
Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:
89
Date of last submission/s:
14 July 2025
Date of hearing:
29 July 2025
Place:
Adelaide
Applicant:
Self-represented with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter
Counsel for the First Respondent:
Mary Baras-Miller
Solicitor for the First Respondent:
Australian Government Solicitor
Second Respondent:
Submitting appearance, save as to costs
ORDERS
ADG 84 of 2022
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:
SHARANJIT SINGH
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE GERRARD
DATE OF ORDER:
26 SEPTEMBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1565
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2G 1565
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Singh v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship concerns the applicant, Mr Singh, a citizen of India, who sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant had applied for a student visa to study in Australia, but his application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, who determined that Mr Singh did not meet the genuine temporary entrant criterion. Following the refusal, Mr Singh applied to the AAT for review of the decision, which was subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal. Mr Singh then sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court of Australia.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the AAT failed to consider evidence relevant to Mr Singh’s application, whether the AAT breached statutory requirements by not considering certain material, and whether the AAT made inconsistent findings. Specifically, the applicant argued that the AAT did not properly consider his educational background, intentions, and the relevance of the courses he had undertaken. He also contended that the AAT breached s 359AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by not considering certain material, and that the AAT’s reasoning was inconsistent and contradictory.
The Court considered the arguments put forward by the applicant and the submissions from the Minister. It noted that the AAT was entitled to weigh the evidence before it as it saw fit and that the applicant’s contention that the AAT placed excessive weight on a particular matter was an invitation to conduct impermissible merits review. The Court further found that the AAT had properly considered the material provided by Mr Singh and had not made any jurisdictional errors in its decision-making process. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that no jurisdictional error had been established.
In light of the Court’s findings, no orders were made in favour of the applicant, and the decision of the AAT was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
For the reasons set out below, the Court has not found jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. On that basis, the application cannot succeed. BACKGROUND Mr Singh (the applicant) is a citizen of India (Court Book (CB) 11). He first arrived in Australia on 30 October 2019 as the holder of a visitor visa. On 14 January 2020, the applicant applied for the visa which is the subject of this application (CB 10). In his application, the applicant indicated he was enrolled to study a Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology, a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis and a Diploma of Automotive Technology. On 14 October 2021, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicants the visas. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant criterion in cl 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) (CB 71-79). That criterion relevantly provides:The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student: (a) having regard to:(i) the applicant’s circumstances; and (ii) the applicant’s immigration history; and (iii)if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant… On 21 October 2021, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision (CB 80-87). On 2 December 2021, the Tribunal invited the applicant, through his migration agent, to provide further information in a “Request for Student Visa Information” form by 16 December 2021 (CB 93-95). The Tribunal also provided the applicant with a copy of Ministerial Direction No. 69, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for student visa and student guardian visa applications’ (Direction 69) (CB 96-100). The applicant provided various documents and information in response to the Tribunal’s invitation (the applicant’s response) (CB 101-130). On 17 February 2022, the applicants were invited to attend a hearing scheduled for 7 March 2022 (CB 117-120). On 7 March 2022, the applicant attended the Tribunal hearing with his migration agent, and with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter (CB 131). On 17 March 2022, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant the visa (CB 139-147). On 6 April 2022, the applicant lodged an application for judicial review in this Court. That application seeks review of the Tribunal’s decision pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). On 10 July 2023, the applicant filed an amended application.THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION To obtain assistance from this Court, the applicant must show that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. It is thus useful to outline the Tribunal’s decision in some detail. The Tribunal began by identifying the visa under review, noting that the applicant applied for the visa on 14 January 2020. The Tribunal observed that, at the time of application, the visa contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had applied for the visa to study in Australia and did not make any claims to meet the criteria for the Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa (at [2]).
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
On 10 July 2023, the applicant filed an amended application.THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION To obtain assistance from this Court, the applicant must show that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. It is thus useful to outline the Tribunal’s decision in some detail. The Tribunal began by identifying the visa under review, noting that the applicant applied for the visa on 14 January 2020. The Tribunal observed that, at the time of application, the visa contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had applied for the visa to study in Australia and did not make any claims to meet the criteria for the Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa (at [2]). The Tribunal explained that a delegate of the Minister had refused to grant the visas as the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily (as required by cl 500.212(a) in Schedule 2 of the Regulations) (at [3]). Accordingly, the delegate was not satisfied that the second applicant met the requirements of cl 500.311 as a member of the applicant’s family unit (at [3]). The Tribunal noted that the issue before it was whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant for entry and stay in Australia as a student (at [8]). The Tribunal set out the relevant legislative provisions in that regard (at [9]). The Tribunal stated that it was required to have regard to Direction 69 in considering whether the applicant satisfied cl 500.212(a) of the Regulations (at [10]). The Tribunal noted, however, that the factors set out in Direction 69 were not to be used as a checklist and were intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole (at [11]). The Tribunal confirmed that on 15 December 2021, prior to the hearing, the applicant filed a response pursuant to an invitation to supply visa information about the courses he was studying, and information about his entry and stay in Australia, in accordance with s 359(2) of the Act. In addition to that response, the Tribunal noted that the applicant provided the following supporting documentation (at [16]-[17]):·His visas to the United Kingdom;·Student academic progress report from the Australian Adelaide International College (AAIC) regarding the studies the applicant had undertaken from 28 June 2021 to 26 December 2021;·Statement of Completion from AAIC dated 6 July 2021 confirming the applicant had completed a Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology which commenced on 8 June 2020 and concluded on 6 June 2021;·Confirmation of enrolment (COE) for the applicant to study a Diploma of Automotive Technology at AAIC, commencing on 7 February 2022 and concluding on 11 September 2022 which was created on 20 December 2019;·COE for the applicant to study a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis at AAIC, commencing on 28 June 2021 and concluding on 26 December 2021 which was created on 20 December 2019;·Statement of Completion from AAIC confirming the applicant had completed his Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology;·Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology issued to the applicant from AAIC dated 6 July 2021 together with transcript of results and Statement of Completion;·Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis awarded to the applicant issued on 18 January 2022 together with transcript of results and Statement of Completion confirming completion of the course on 26 December 2021.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Against that background, the applicant initially told the Court that he did not want to return to India with a “stamp of refusal” as this might impact on a further application for a visa. The applicant also raised that he had a girlfriend who he was planning to marry, and that he was subject to a bar pursuant to s 48 of the Act preventing him from applying for another visa. The Court reminded the applicant that its task was to consider whether or not there was any error in the Tribunal decision, and that he needed to address the Court in relation to what he said was wrong or unfair about the Tribunal’s decision. In response, the applicant disputed the Tribunal’s finding that he had a plan to stay in Australia and asserted that he changed his course of study because it was his passion to undertake the automotive course. He reiterated that he did not want a refusal decision on his immigration history.CONSIDERATION As outlined above, the application for judicial review contains nine grounds which were supported by written submissions. The applicant’s written submissions largely addressed the first five grounds of the application grouping them into the following asserted errors:(a)Failure to properly consider applicant’s educational background and intentions;(b)Breach of s 359AA of the Migration Act;(c)Reliance on irrelevant or misconceived factors;(d)Inconsistent and contradictory reasoning;(e)Irrelevant and probative material. Noting that the applicant was unrepresented in this matter, the Court has endeavoured to interpret the applicant’s grounds as broadly as possible (as per the principles in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392). In this respect, the Court will address each of the grounds set out in the application even though a number of those grounds were not addressed in written submissions or at the hearing. The Court will also consider a potential tenth ground the Minister says appears to arise on the written submissions.Ground one Ground one contends that the Tribunal placed excessive weight on its opinion that the Diploma of Automotive Technology course would not assist the applicant in the future. The applicant argued that the courses he studied were clearly progressive and directly relevant to his intention to establish an automotive business in India. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal was entitled, as part of its fact-finding function, to attribute such weight to the matters before it as it considers appropriate (citing Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 281-282). The Court accepts the Minister’s submission that the applicant’s argument that the Tribunal placed too much weight on a matter is in reality an invitation to impermissible merits review. It was a matter for the Tribunal to determine what, if any, weight should be attributed to any particular matter or evidence (NAHI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 at [11]).