Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2024] FedCFamC2G 1259
•2 December 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1259
File number(s): MLG 302 of 2019 Judgment of: JUDGE FORBES Date of judgment: 2 December 2024 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Contributory Parent (Migrant) visas -judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal not to grant visas – where applicants failed to disclose member of the family in visa application – where the applicants allege that daughter has been legally “disowned” and no longer part of family unit – whether failure to declare daughter is false and misleading – where failure to meet visa criteria established - whether there compassionate or compelling grounds for waiving public interest criterion – where no grounds for waiver established – application dismissed Legislation: Migration Regulations1994 (Cth) cl 173.213, r 1.05 Cases cited: Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 184
Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 50
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 63 Date of hearing: 19 November 2024 Place: Melbourne Applicants: In person Solicitor for the Respondents: Mr Orchard; Sparke Helmore Lawyers ORDERS
MLG 302 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: TARLOCHAN SINGH
First Applicant
SURINDER KAUR
Second Applicant
YUVRAJ SINGH
Third Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE FORBES
DATE OF ORDER:
2 DECEMBER 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicants’ application for judicial review filed 6 February 2019 be dismissed.
2.The Applicants pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.
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 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE FORBES
INTRODUCTION
This proceeding concerns an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) on 1 February 2019 to affirm the decision of the Minister’s delegate (the delegate) to not grant the applicants Contributory Parent (Migrant) (Class CA) visas.
The applicants are a father Mr Tarlochan Singh (first applicant), his partner Mrs Surinder Kaur (second applicant) and his son, Mr Yuvraj Singh (third applicant). The primary applicant’s first son, Mr Harmanjeet Singh, an Australian citizen, was the sponsor for the applicants’ visa application.
The Tribunal found that in the course of making their application the applicants failed to mention that their family included a daughter, Ms Simranjeet Kaur. The primary applicant maintained before the delegate, the Tribunal and again before this Court that he had “disowned” the daughter and did not believe he was required to mention her.
The Tribunal found that visa application documentation which failed to mention the existence of the daughter was bogus or false or misleading. By providing false and/or misleading information to the Department, the applicants failed to meet Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC4020) which was a mandatory requirement for the grant of the Contributory Parent visa. The Tribunal had a discretion to waive compliance with PIC4020 on “compassionate” or “compelling” grounds but decided not to do so.
The central issues in this case are:
(1)whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the applicants’ disowning of their daughter did not relieve them of the obligation to reveal her existence in their visa application; and
(2)whether the Tribunal properly took into account the applicants’ personal circumstances in deciding not to waive the requirement for compliance with PIC4020.
For the reasons set out below, I have found that the Tribunal’s decision was not affected by jurisdictional error.
Accordingly, the application will be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
The applicants are nationals of India. The primary applicant’s first son is an Australian citizen.
On 18 October 2012, the applicants made an application for Contributory Parent (Temporary) visas in Subclass 173.
The application for the visa which was prepared by the applicant’s representative required the applicant to give details of all “Your children (including step children from both current and previous marriages/relationships and the child sponsoring this application)”. In response to that request the primary applicant listed his son Yuvraj Singh (born 22 March 1988) and his Australian citizen sponsor son, Harmanjeet Singh[1]. They were also listed as his partner’s children[2]. The application did not disclose any other children.
[1] Court Book (CB) 15
[2] CB 16
In another form, Yuvraj was listed as a dependent of the principal applicant and Harmanjeet was identified as his brother[3]. Again there was no mention of other children of the applicant.
[3] CB 26
On 25 April 2014, the Department was sent a completed and signed Form 80 [Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment] on behalf of the each of the applicants. These forms required disclosure of personal information including family members with whom each applicant was associated. Again the primary applicant and his partner disclosed the children Yuvraj Singh and Harmanjeet Singh but no others[4]. In his Form 80[5], Yuvraj disclosed Harmanjeet as his only sibling.
[4] CB 56, CB 74
[5] CB 95
To meet the requirements for the grant of the visas, the applicants had to meet the “Balance of Family test” in cl 173.213 and r 1.05 of the Migration Regulations1994 (Cth). The balance of family test ensures that visas are granted to parents who have a significant connection to Australia. This connection is measured by how many of the children live in Australia compared to other countries. In simple terms, the balance of family test evaluates whether at least half of an applicant’s children live in Australia (eligible children). A parent satisfies the test if the number of eligible children is greater than or equal to the number of ineligible children. The test must be satisfied at the time of application for the visa.
The applicants were also required to meet PIC4020 which, among other things, proscribed the giving of any “information that is false or misleading in a material particular”.
Unbeknown to the Department and not disclosed in the visa application material was the fact that the primary applicant had a daughter named Simranjeet Kaur. Also unbeknown to the Department and not disclosed by the primary applicant was the fact that he had initiated a formal process to “disown” his daughter on 11 October 2012, one week prior to lodging the temporary Contributory Parent application. That process involved him filing a notice in the Tribune Chandigarh newspaper in India which refers to his daughter being “disowned from movable and immovable properties”.
On 9 May 2014 the applicant, his partner and his son Yuvraj were granted Contributory Parent (temporary) visas.
On 5 January 2015 the applicants applied for the Class CA Contributory Parent (Migrant) visas in subclass 143. The applicant’s Australian citizen son, Harmanjeet, was identified as the sponsor for the visa and as an eligible child for the purposes of the Balance of Family test. Once again, visa application documents which were signed by each of the applicants failed to disclose the true composition of the family. There was no mention of the principal applicant’s daughter Simranjeet.
In July 2015, the delegate discovered that the applicants had failed to disclose that they had another daughter in India. This discovery was made when the Department came into possession of a Ration Card dated 19 September 2005 and issued by the Government of Haryana which showed the family composition as follows:
·Tarlochan Singh
·Surinder Kaur
·Harmanjeet Singh
·Simranjeet Kaur
·Yuvraj Singh
On 30 July 2015 the Department sent a letter to the primary applicant inviting him to comment on adverse information. In correspondence[6] the delegate drew the applicants’ attention to the requirement for them to satisfy PIC4020, including that they not provide a bogus document or false information. The Department asserted that there was evidence which suggested that the primary applicant or a person included in the visa application had provided, or caused to be provided, documentation and information of that type.
[6] CB 202
The correspondence from the Department also asserted that there was no available evidence which would exclude Simranjeet from the balance of family test and that, by not declaring her as a daughter, the information contained in documents previously lodged by the applicants could be considered false and misleading.
Following the invitation to comment on the adverse information, the applicants withdrew their application on 14 August 2015[7].
[7] CB 212
On 24 August 2015, again unbeknown to the Department, an Indian court issued a document concerning the principal applicant’s daughter. The court order purports to remove the daughter from the applicant’s property and removes other rights.
On 5 January 2016, the applicants applied for the visa which is the subject of the Tribunal’s decision in these proceedings. Again, the documents filed in support of the application for the Contributory Parent visa did not disclose the existence of the daughter Simranjeet. Receipt of the application was acknowledged on 7 January 2016.
On 21 October 2016 the Department again invited the applicants to comment on adverse information which had been received in relation to the visa applications. As had been the case with the July 2015 correspondence, the Department suggested that the applications included a bogus document or false or misleading information. The Department alleged that the information supplied by the applicants was inconsistent with the family composition represented in the Ration Card dated 19 September 2005.
On 15 November 2016, the applicants provided a response and claimed that they had “disowned” their daughter. A copy of a Public Notice published in the newspaper on 11 October 2012 was provided together with court documents and a formal decree that:
“[…] Simranjeet Kaur has been evicted from her rights from movable and immovable properties of plaintiff [the primary applicant] […] throughout India and plaintiff have withdrawn all rights of [Simranjeet Kaur] in future and if any person who deals with [Simranjeet Kaur] and [Simranjeet Kaur] will any wrong with anyone, then that person himself will be responsible for the same.”[8]
[8] CB 283
On 22 November 2016, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant[9] the applicants the visa on the basis that they did not satisfy cl 143.224 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations. The reason for the delegate’s decision was that the applicants had failed to satisfy the Public Interest Criterion 4020 because they had provided a bogus document or information that was false or misleading in a material particular.
[9] CB 290-297
On 28 November 2016, the applicant sought review of the delegate’s decision. Nearly two years later, in November 2018, they were invited to attend a hearing to give evidence and present arguments. On 24 January 2019 the applicants attended a hearing before the Tribunal and gave evidence with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter. The Tribunal also took evidence from the sponsor.
On 25 January 2019, the applicant emailed the Tribunal further evidence. The primary applicant submitted that he had put money into his eldest son’s account to provide financial support for him and his family. The Tribunal was provided with various bank statements including transfers between the father and son. The applicants relied on this information as evidence of compassionate or compelling circumstances warranting the waiver of their requirement to satisfy PIC4020.
Tribunal decision
On 1 February 2019 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant’s Contributory Parent (Migrant) visas.
In written submissions dated 4 November 2024 filed in the judicial review application, the Minister summarises the Tribunal’s key findings. I have carefully perused the Tribunal’s reasons and I am satisfied that the following summary as set out at [10]-[18] of the Minister’s submissions is an accurate record of why the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision:
[10] The Tribunal found the applicants’ claims in relation to their daughter to be problematic. It found the “extremely close proximity” of the act of “disowning” their daughter and the temporary visa application suggested it was arranged for the purpose of the visa application and not for any other reason, which brought into question the genuine nature of the action. It also noted that despite the claimed deterioration of the relationship, no attempt was made to “disown” the daughter until the applicants were preparing their visa application. The Tribunal did not consider the fact that the applicants decided to disown their daughter changed the parent-child relationship with the daughter. In this regard, it noted that there was nothing in the wording of the application forms or relevant legislation that limits the request for information to children who are in good relationships with their parents: CB 350-351 [18]-[20].
[11] To the extent that the applicants claimed the court order severed the relationship, the Tribunal considered it significant that the court order was dated 2015 while their application for the temporary visa was made in 2012. It did not consider that the applicants believed that they no longer had a daughter on the basis of a newspaper publication alone. It also noted that the newspaper article and the court order appeared to relate to financial obligations and not custody arrangements. The Tribunal did not consider it sufficient to sever the parent-child relationship for the purpose of r 1.05: CB 351 [21]-[22].
[12] The Tribunal did not consider the newspaper article sufficient, nor did it accept that the applicants believed the newspaper article was sufficient because their agent had advised them that this was the case. It also did not accept that the application had been prepared by an agent, the applicant had made no inquiries and did not know whether the daughter’s name had been mentioned in the application. The Tribunal noted that the applications were signed by the applicants and that PIC 4020 applied even if the form was completed on their behalf. In this regard, it found that they had instructed the false or misleading information to be given: CB 351 [22]-[25].
[13] The Tribunal found that the applicants had failed to disclose their daughter in two applications. It formed the view that they arranged for the daughter to be “disowned” shortly before making the application because they knew they could not otherwise meet the balance of family test. The Tribunal found that the applicants had intentionally failed to mention their daughter, knowing the information was false or misleading, in order to obtain the visa: CB 351 [26].
[14] The Tribunal found that the applicants had “held” the temporary visa at the time the present application was made and therefore within the 12 months before the application was made. It found that the applicants had, by failing to mention their daughter in the various forms for the temporary visa application, given or caused to be given to the Minister or an officer information that was false or misleading, that the information was relevant for the purpose of the family balance test in cl 173.213, and therefore false or misleading in a material particular. The Tribunal found that the applicants did not meet PIC 4020(1)(b): CB 351-352 [27]-[28].
[15] The Tribunal accepted that the applicant provided limited financial support to his son’s family, but was not satisfied that the support was necessary or that alternative arrangements could not be put in place. It accepted that the applicants support the son’s family by other means, including raising the children, but did not consider such arrangements to give rise to compelling or compassionate circumstances. It accepted that an emotional connection may exist between the applicants and their grandchildren, but was not satisfied that such a connection could only exist when the parties live in the same household and found that it could continue even if the applicants were to leave Australia. It found that the applicants’ personal circumstances did not affect the interests of Australia, Australian citizens/permanent residents or New Zealand citizens, and to the extent it was claimed that these circumstances affected the son, it did not consider them to be compelling because the applicants had never held a right to remain in Australia permanently: CB 352-354 [29]-[42].
[16] The Tribunal, having considered the totality of their circumstances, was not satisfied that there were compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, an Australian citizen or permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen that justified the grant of a visa: CB 354 [43].
[17] The Tribunal noted that even if it had found the circumstances put forward by the applicants to be of a compassionate or compelling nature (which it did not accept), it would not have exercised its discretion in circumstances where the misleading information provided was central to the applicant’s eligibility for the visa and their present circumstances arose as a result: CB 354 [44].
[18] The Tribunal found that the requirements of PIC 4020(1) should not be waived: CB 354 [45].
Application for judicial review
On 6 February 2019, the applicant’s filed an application in this court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. Verbatim, the applicants seek to impugn the Tribunal’s decision on the following grounds:
1.No weight given to the arguement and evidence provided by us that we are supporting financially to our son’s HARMANJEET SINGH’S family. We have provided every single detail and evidence how we are supported them in their difficult time when the were operating a fuel station. Without our support they could have been end up in huge debt and the support is continuing while working in a farm I am giving money to my son
2.No to less weight given to the fact and argument that being an aged couple our health in deteriorating and we are on regular medication. If we have to leave Australia and now we do not have any means of income in india to keep up our medical bills and the household needs. This situation of our health and financials will have a bad impact of our son’s family in Australia.
3.No weight given to the fact that me and my wife have a deep and strong relation with our grandchildren. They [illegible] without our support they cannot continue with which led to their worse financial situation. Furthermore, our grandchildren have strong bond with us and if we have to leave Australia it will have a negative impact on kids mental state.
4.We told the Tribunal that how we misguided by an immigration agent and explained everything truthfully and in good faith. Tribunal fails to give us any clear explanation why they did not consider the facts and evidence we provided that how we have been misguided. Tribunal should be more sympathetic to our situation and should come up with better outcome for us.
5.Tribunal fails to explains about a eligible criteria for parent contributory visa which is “we can exclude our children by a court order”. Tribunal failed to elaborate the meaning of the criteria.
All of the above grounds have a direct impact on an Australian citizens (my son’s family) But Tribunal fails to establish this case eligibility to compensate and compelling ground.
The application for judicial review was heard before me on 19 November 2024. Because the applicants are located in Western Australia I consented for the hearing to be conducted electronically by Microsoft Teams.
The primary applicant appeared on behalf of the visa applicants and was assisted by a Punjabi interpreter. Mr Orchard, a solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Minister.
Orders made by a Registrar of the court in September 2024, afforded the applicants an opportunity to file and serve written submissions, any amended application and any additional evidence 28 days before the hearing. Save for their original application for judicial review, the applicants have not filed further documents.
The Minister filed written submissions and an electronic court book. The applicant initially indicated that these documents had not been received but after further enquiries he conceded that the court book and submissions had been emailed to him at the address nominated in the application. I note, also, that the orders made by the Registrar in September 2024 included a notation to the effect that the applicant acknowledged receipt of the court book.
Before inviting the applicant to address the Court, I provided him with an explanation about the Court’s role in a judicial review proceeding and provided guidance about the procedure the Court would adopt during the hearing. I explained to the applicant that the Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal’s decision or grant the visa that he seeks. I informed him that the role of the Court was restricted to determining whether the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at its decision. I emphasised to him that he should endeavour to explain why the Tribunal made an error in its decision-making and what he believes the Tribunal did wrong.
Applicant’s submissions
The principal applicant, Mr Singh submitted that he had concerns with his daughter from before 2009. He said that the family had disowned his daughter before the visa application had been made. He said that the applicants had submitted a newspaper notice and a court decree which proved that she had been legally disowned. He said that the newspaper notice was the first step.
Mr Singh submitted that the Tribunal had made a mistake by considering Simranjeet to be part of the family even after they had legally disowned her and that the family’s decision to disown her was not properly considered. Mr Singh contended that he had been denied justice because consideration of his daughter as a family member was a mistake.
Mr Singh said that he had paid $76,000 to get a temporary visa in Australia. In order to meet these costs, he said he had to raise money against land he owned in India and he also had to sell jewellery. He stated that his son had to give up study in order for the family to make the application.
The applicant submitted that it was important for the family to be able to remain in Australia because he had no means of support back in India. He said that he had been living with his grandchildren for the last 8 to 10 years and that they were emotionally dependent upon him. Mr Singh said that when he travels to India his grandchildren miss him and he misses them. He said that he had been a good citizen, he provided financial help for his children and that he was a taxpayer.
In his oral reply, Mr Singh reiterated that neither he or the other applicants had submitted any bogus or misleading documents. He said that he honestly did not think that he had to mention his daughter in the visa applications because he did not believe that she was part of his family after she had been disowned. He said that the Ration Card which identified Simranjeet as part of the family was an old document and it predated the years in which they commenced having difficulty with her. Mr Singh said that disowning his daughter was under a proper legal process, that his daughter did not appear in the courts and that the family had no connection with her.
He conceded that the Tribunal and the delegate had considered various arguments they raised, but he did not believe that they did so properly. He said he was looking to the Court for justice.
Minister submissions and consideration
Mr Orchard on behalf of the Minister submitted that each of the grounds raised by the applicants lacked merit and that the applicants were, in effect, seeking merits review of the Tribunal’s decision. He submitted that nothing raised by the principal applicant in oral submissions was new or revealed judicial error.
The Minister submitted that the difficulty for the applicants in this case is the incontestable fact that they failed to disclose their daughter and sister Simranjeet in previous applications. The Minister acknowledges the applicant’s belief that they did not have to do so, but submits that the Tribunal properly found that “disowning” the daughter from various property rights did nothing to change the parent-child relationship. The Minister submitted, consistent with the finding of the Tribunal, that there was nothing in the wording of the application forms or relevant legislation which limits the request for information to children who are in a good relationship with their parents.
The Minister submitted that it was open to the Tribunal to express concern about the timing and motive for disowning the daughter. The background facts reveal that the notice disowning Simranjeet was placed in the local paper just one week before one of the visa applications. It is also curious that the principal applicant obtained what appears to be an uncontested court order against his daughter after the delegate received information about her existence as a member of the family. It will be recalled that the applicants were invited by the Department to comment on adverse information arising from the Ration Card and that they then withdrew their application before doing so. It was only after this that the court decree was obtained.
The Minister also notes that the court decree which disowned the daughter significantly post- dated the various visa forms and documents in which the applicants failed to mention her existence. Moreover, the court decree related to financial and property matters, not parent/child custodial matters.
The Minister submits that these events and evidence reasonably support the Tribunal’s suspicion that the daughter was not disclosed as a family member so that the applicants could meet the Balance of Family test. If the daughter had been included in the various application forms as a member of the family, she would have been considered another ineligible family member for the purposes of the test. By concealing her existence the applicants were able to argue that the number of eligible children was equal to or greater than those who were ineligible.
The Minister reiterated that the relevant criteria for the visa included the requirement that the applicants meet PIC 4020, including the prohibition on bogus documents and false or misleading information. The Minister submitted that it was plainly open to the Tribunal to find that the applicants had failed to tell the truth in visa application documentation and that they only had themselves to blame. Although the applicants may have received some assistance from representatives, all documents which required disclosure of family members were signed by them and they were responsible for their content.
The Minister submitted that the Tribunal’s finding that the applicants did not meet the requirements of PIC4020 is effectively unimpeachable. The Tribunal’s discussion of the relevant law at paragraphs [6]-[8] reveals the scope of the Tribunal’s enquiry and its analysis of the facts at [9]-[28] is comprehensive and thorough. It was open to the Tribunal to find that the visa applications which failed to disclose the daughter were bogus documents or, if not, were certainly false and misleading.
Having so found, the Minister submits that the Tribunal was required to, and did, consider whether to waive compliance with PIC4020. In dealing with the issue of waiver, the Minister submits that the Tribunal undertook an orthodox analysis of the facts of the case and properly considered whether they amounted to “compelling circumstances”.
I agree with that submission. At [29]-[30] the Tribunal properly framed its consideration of “compelling” and/or “compassionate” circumstances by reference to sound authority[10]. At [31] and following, the Tribunal weighed and considered an array of potentially relevant matters including:
(a)the applicants’ claim that they had disposed of property in India and had nothing to go back to;
(b)the applicants’ financial circumstances including the unavailability of a government pension and the sale of land to fund their temporary visas;
(c)the opportunities that the applicant’s son has forsaken to settle himself and work in Australia;
(d)the principal applicant’s age and medical conditions;
(e)the principal applicant’s record as a good citizen and as a person of good character;
(f)the financial assistance the Australian citizen son had received in his business; and
(g)the relationship between the applicants and their grandchildren and the assistance provided through house work on childminding.
[10] Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 184; Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 50
At [43] the Tribunal concluded, “having considered the totality of the applicants’ circumstances” that it was not satisfied that there are compelling circumstances that justify the grant of the visa.
The Minister submits that the Tribunal’s finding at [44] is problematic for the applicants. There, the Tribunal concluded that even if it had found that the circumstances put forward by the applicants were of a compassionate or compelling nature, it would still have concluded that those circumstances did not justify the grant of a visa. The Tribunal found that the false and misleading information provided by the applicants went to the core of their eligibility for the visa because had the daughter’s existence been disclosed they could not have met the Balance of Family test and they would never have been granted the temporary visa which had allowed them to live and settle in Australia for some years.
I agree with the Minister that it was open to the Tribunal to be concerned that the concealment of the daughter was consciously directed to circumventing the eligibility criteria for the visa. The omission of the applicants’ daughter and sister from the visa applications is a matter of significance and it was open to the Tribunal to be concerned that it was done with a view to meeting the balance of family test. The Tribunal was correct to observe that the false and misleading concealment of the daughter led to the grant of temporary visas and enabled the applicants to live and settle in Australia. There was no error in the Tribunal considering the applicants’ plea of compelling or compassionate circumstances through that lens.
In dealing with the specific grounds set out in the judicial review application, the Minister submitted that the Tribunal expressly considered each of the matters that the applicants claim were given no weight (grounds 1-3).
The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had provided some financial support to his son’s family and the son’s business, but found that the assistance was not necessary and that the sponsor could make other arrangements. The Tribunal also considered the age of the applicant parents, their state of health, their financial needs and the potential impact on the son’s family if they were to return to India. The quality of the relationship between the applicants and the grandchildren was also considered.
I agree with the Minister’s submission that the applicants in this review are doing no more than advancing the same arguments before the Court as they had before the Tribunal, with the hope of a different result. The applicants are seeking impermissible merits review in relation to issues which have been comprehensively dealt with by the Tribunal.
The Minister also submits that there is no substance to the applicants’ claim that they were “misguided by an immigration agent” (ground 4). Again, the Tribunal explicitly considered this claim and rejected it for the reasons set out at [23]-[25]. I see no merit in the applicants’ claim in circumstances where they signed the visa application documents and are properly accountable for their content (including omissions). The Tribunal’s rejection of the applicants’ claim was open to it for the reasons given.
The Minister also submits that it was open to the Tribunal to find that the evidence in relation to “disowning” the daughter was insufficient to relieve the applicants of having to disclose her existence (ground 5). Relevantly, the Tribunal found that the court order only severed the relationship between the parents and their daughter in relation to property and financial obligations, the order was not in existence at the time the applicants applied for the temporary visas and the newspaper notice was arranged a week before the visa applications. The Minister submits that adverse credibility findings were open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it and that it was open to the Tribunal to find that the applicant had intentionally failed to mention their daughter knowing that the omission was false and misleading.
DISPOSITION
The grounds of review upon which the applicants rely do not raise any matter which has not already been comprehensively considered and determined by the Tribunal.
An application for judicial review is not an occasion for reconsideration of the merits. The applicants have not pointed to any failure of the Tribunal to properly discharge its statutory task. Their complaint about the insufficiency of weight given to certain considerations simply expresses dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s decision. It does not reveal jurisdictional error.
For the reasons set out in this judgment, I accept the Minister’s submission that the Tribunal’s decision is not affected by judicial error.
The application is dismissed and I will hear the parties on costs.
I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Forbes. Associate:
Dated: 2 December 2024
0
2
1