Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2024] FedCFamC2G 806
•16 September 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 806
File number(s): MLG 987 of 2019 Judgment of: JUDGE CUTHBERTSON Date of judgment: 16 September 2024 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Student (subclass 500) visa – decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where delegate determined that applicant not a genuine temporary entrant – where applicant not enrolled in a course of study at the time of Tribunal decision – where Tribunal found the applicant did not satisfy the primary criterion pursuant to cl 500.211 – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 65, 348, 359, 360
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) rr 1.07, 7.01
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cll 500.111, 500.2, 500.211, 500.212
Cases cited: Dait v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 288 FCR 1; [2022] FCAFC 25
Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21; [2022] FCAFC 3
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18
Nadeem v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1498
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152; [2006] HCA 63
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 44 Date of hearing: 21 August 2024 Place: Melbourne Applicant: Appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr R O’Shannessy Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs Solicitor for the Respondents: Mills Oakley ORDERS
MLG 987 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: SHUBHJOT SINGH
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE CUTHBERTSON
DATE OF ORDER:
16 SEPTEMBER 2024
AS PRONOUNCED ON 21 AUGUST 2024, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the first respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs”.
2.Pursuant to r 7.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (Rules), the application filed on 4 April 2019 is amended so as to seek a writ of mandamus.
3.Pursuant to rr 1.07 and 7.02 of the Rules, the Court dispenses with any requirement to make, file or serve an amended application as ordered in Order 2 above.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
4.The applicant’s application for judicial review filed on 4 April 2019 as amended is dismissed.
5.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.
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 ornor 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 CUTHBERTSON
INTRODUCTION
The applicant filed an application on 4 April 2019 seeking judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (the Tribunal) made on 5 March 2019. By that decision, the Tribunal affirmed a decision of the delegate of the first respondent (the Minister) to refuse the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 500 visa (visa) under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The Minister opposes the application. For the reasons set out below, the application is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
The applicant, who is a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 24 February 2014 as the holder of a Student (Class TU subclass 573) visa (Court Book (CB) 2, 3, 11, 120 and 179). On 15 March 2017, the applicant lodged an application for the visa (CB 1-59). That application was refused by a delegate for the Minister (delegate) on 11 August 2017 on the basis that they were not satisfied that the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant (GTE) as required by cl 500.212 of Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) (CB 118-122).
On 20 August 2017, a migration agent lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal on behalf of the applicant (CB 123-124). On 17 January 2019, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide further information about his visa application (CB 146-147). That invitation identified the relevant requirements for the visa (namely that the applicant must be enrolled in a registered course of study and be a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student), inviting the applicant to give information in writing about the course of study he was undertaking and his entry and stay in Australia as a student. A link was provided to an online ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form which included specific details about the information being requested (CB 146). The applicant was also directed to Ministerial Direction No 69 ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criteria for Student visa and Student guardian visa applications’ (MD 69). A copy of MD 69 was attached to the letter (CB 148-152).
On 31 January 2019, the applicant’s migration agent submitted a completed ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form to the Tribunal dated 22 January 2019 (CB 153-166). In that form, the applicant identified previous courses of study undertaken in Australia, the most recent of which ended in January 2018 (CB 157). The applicant also indicated in the form that he did not have a current Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in a registered course of study. Further, in answer to a question seeking the details of all courses that the applicant had been enrolled in while in Australia, including cancelled enrolments, courses successfully completed and current or future enrolments, no information was provided (CB 160). No response was provided to the request in the form for details of how and why the applicant chose the education provider for the Australian courses he was currently studying or proposing to study in the future (CB 162).
On 14 February 2019, the Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a hearing (CB 169-171). The invitation included a ‘Response to hearing invitation – MR Division’ form that it asked be completed and returned within 7 days of receipt of the hearing notice. It also requested that the applicant provide all documents he intended to rely on to establish that he met the criteria for the visa. The letter advised that the applicant should have regard to the refusal decision and any changes in his circumstances in providing documents and preparing for the hearing. The Tribunal also requested it be provided the following information at least 7 days before the hearing date (CB 170):
1. A copy of your current Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) or other document/s that show you are currently enrolled in a course of study as defined in cl.500.111 of schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations), as is required for the grant of a student visa.
2. Documents that show your past studies in Australia, including copies of all your attendance certificates, academic transcripts and certificates of completion as well as documents evidencing any work related to past or intended studies in Australia.
3. We will assess whether you are a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (which was the reason for the delegate’s decision). Relevant to this requirement is a direction from the Minister known as Direction No. 69, a copy of which is attached.
Please provide a written statement addressing the issue of whether you are a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student by referring to Direction No.69.
Finally, the Tribunal’s decision record relevantly stated the following (CB 170):
In determining whether you are a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, we may also have regard to cl.500.212(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This clause requires that you intend to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to your record of compliance with any previous visa conditions and your stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject. Please be prepared to answer any questions the Tribunal may have on this issue and provide any supporting information or documents you may wish to provide to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal hearing took place on 5 March 2019, and the applicant was unrepresented (CB 184). The Tribunal’s hearing record indicates the hearing commenced at 13:39 with an oral decision affirming the delegate’s decision being made at 3.50 pm (CB 186). The record does not record that any documentation was received during the course of the review hearing (CB 184-187).
The applicant was sent a written record of the outcome of the review on 5 March 2019 and advised of his right under the Act to request a written statement of decision and reasons (CB 188-192). On 18 March 2019, the applicant requested that the Tribunal send him “a full decision record” (CB 193-197). He also contacted the Tribunal by email on 21 March 2019 confirming that he needed the reasons for decision for refusal of his hearing (CB 198).
On 1 April 2019, the Tribunal sent the applicant a written statement of the decision and reasons which were given orally at the hearing (CB 201-204).
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION
The Tribunal’s decision record noted that the applicant must satisfy a range of criteria set out in the Regulations to be eligible for the grant of the visa (CB 203, [3]). It noted that to satisfy reg 500.212, an applicant must be a genuine student who intends to stay in Australia temporarily and comply with conditions which may be included with the visa (CB 203, [6]). At (CB 203 [7]), the Tribunal stated:
To be a genuine student you must be engaged in and applying yourself to a meaningful program of study progressing academically down an identifiable path. To be a genuine temporary entrant your circumstances must indicate a genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily. And in considering whether an applicant will comply with visa conditions consideration is given to your complying with previous visas and your stated intention to comply in the future.
The Tribunal’s decision record noted that when considering whether an applicant is a GTE, it is necessary to have regard to MD 69. It was noted that the issues in that direction were detailed in the delegate’s decision (CB 203, [8], [11]).
The Tribunal’s decision record further explained that its role was to take a fresh look at the application, consider the applicant’s circumstances, the MD 69 issues and “to be satisfied [they were] a genuine student who intend[ed] to stay in Australia temporarily” (CB 203, [10]). The reasons note that the delegate’s decision was discussed in detail with the applicant, and that the applicant told the Tribunal that he understood the delegate’s decision (CB 203, [11]).The Tribunal stated that the delegate’s decision and its detailed references to GTE and the issues in MD 69 put the applicant on notice of the issues in his case (CB 203, [11]).
The Tribunal then referred to the hearing invitation referred to at [5] above, stating (CB 204 [12]-[13]):
[12] Given it was the reason your application was refused, with the hearing invitation we advised we would assess whether you met the genuine temporary requirements and we asked you to provide a statement addressing the issues in Direction 69 and we provided you with a copy of that direction. You did not respond and did not provide a statement regarding you being a genuine temporary entrant.
[13] The Tribunal finds that to be extraordinary behaviour for someone appealing a decision to refuse their application because the delegate found you were not a genuine temporary entrant.
The Tribunal’s decision record noted that the applicant answered some questions going to those issues (CB 204, [14]). It noted, however, that the applicant had come to Australia on a 573 visa: “[y]ou studied, well, I am not sure you ever studied at that level but you certainly cancelled that enrolment after being here a very short period of time which created a breach of condition 8516 of your visa”. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been in Australia for over five years, and the applicant’s evidence was that in that time he had only completed studies in courses that have lasted less than a year and a half (CB 204, [15]). Against that background the Tribunal stated: “[t]hat is certainly not the progress of a genuine student”.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been requested to provide evidence that he was currently enrolled (CB 204, [16]). It noted that during the hearing the applicant stated that he was “not currently enrolled and [did] not have a current offer of enrolment”. The Tribunal noted that current enrolment was a prerequisite for the grant of a visa (CB 204, [18]). The Tribunal concluded that as the applicant was not currently enrolled, he did not satisfy cl 500.211 of the Regulations which is a prerequisite for the grant of the visa. Consequently, as the applicant did not meet cl 500.211, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was not eligible for the visa and it did not intend to consider whether he met the GTE criteria (CB 203, [19]).
THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW IN THIS COURT
The application for judicial review filed on 4 April 2019 contains the following grounds:
1. Under clause 500.212 I have sufficient evidence to prove my genuine intention to stay here as temporary student to satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
2. Under the Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Ac, (sic) other factors were not considered, such as personal tie ups in my home country with my family but sole consideration is given on my financial capacity .My travels to my home country have been ignored.
3. Also please refer to my past immigration history and my past studies completed as per my transcripts completed.
On 3 April 2024, orders were made in anticipation of the matter being listed for hearing. Those orders included that the applicant file and serve on or before 17 April 2024 any amended application with proper particulars of the grounds of the application, written submissions and any additional evidence on which he seeks to rely. No further materials were provided in accordance with those orders.
The Minister filed written submissions on 23 April 2024. They were served on the applicant by post.
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT
The applicant appeared before me unrepresented. I spent some time explaining the hearing process to him, identifying the documents before me and the issues that were considered by the Tribunal. I also explained that the role of the Court was limited to identifying whether the Tribunal made any serious legal errors when conducting its review of the delegate’s decision. Examples of such errors were identified including whether the Tribunal misapplied the law or failed to follow appropriate procedures.
The Court Book filed by the Minister was tendered. Included in that Court Book was the applicant’s application for review.
During the course of hearing the application, I made orders amending the name of the first respondent in order that it conform with the relevant Minister’s current title. In addition, I made orders pursuant to r 7.01 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (Rules) to amend the application so as to seek a writ of mandamus.
The applicant was asked to explain what he considered the Tribunal had done wrong in reaching the conclusion that he was not currently enrolled and did not satisfy cl 500.211 of the Regulations. Noting that the applicant’s grounds of review were directed at the cl 500.212 GTE criterion, I asked the applicant to explain why the Tribunal should have addressed those matters.
The applicant confirmed that the Tribunal’s decision record accurately recorded that he was asked during the hearing whether he was currently enrolled in a course of study, and that he responded he was not currently enrolled and did not have an enrolment. He confirmed he had received the invitation to attend the hearing. He explained that he had been expecting his migration agent to attend the Tribunal hearing, but that they did not attend. The applicant confirmed he did not seek an adjournment of the Tribunal hearing.
The applicant confirmed he had no evidence at the time of the Tribunal hearing that established he was then enrolled in a course of study. He explained that he had previously been enrolled and studying but that those enrolments had been cancelled when his visa was refused. He also said his previous enrolments had been cancelled because he failed to pay the relevant fees. The tenor of his submissions was to the effect that he should have been provided an opportunity by the Tribunal to obtain evidence of enrolment. He did not suggest that he asked the Tribunal for any such opportunity during the course of the Tribunal hearing. No such request is recorded in the hearing record.
The Minister submitted that the Tribunal had correctly identified both the dispositive issue on review and that it was different to issue before the delegate.
First, as to the identification of the dispositive issue, the Minister submitted the Tribunal did not misconstrue the criterion. The letters to the applicant referred to at [3] and [5] above identified it was a requirement that the applicant be enrolled in a registered course of study and directed the applicant’s attention to providing evidence of any such enrolment. The information sought by the Tribunal was not confined to a CoE but also included “other documents that show you are currently enrolled in a course of study as defined in cl 500.111 of schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994… as is required for the grant of a student visa” (CB 170).
Secondly, the Minister submitted that the applicant had been given ample notice in that correspondence that the cl 500.211 criterion was an essential requirement. In addition, the Tribunal’s decision record reflects that the applicant was given a specific opportunity to address that criterion during the course of the hearing. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal complied with its obligations pursuant to the statutory scheme (SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152; [2006] HCA 63 (SZBEL) at [35]-[36] per Gleeson CJ, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ).
Thirdly, in respect of the point raised by the applicant concerning the non-attendance of his representative at the hearing, the Minister submitted that the applicant was afforded opportunities to gather evidence in support of his application. Further, there was no indication that the applicant had sought an adjournment. The Minister submitted that the only way this could become relevant was if the Tribunal’s decision to proceed was unreasonable. In this respect, it was submitted it was relevant to take into account that even if the Tribunal had been faced with an application for an adjournment, there was little a representative could say to overcome the absence of evidence of enrolment in a course of study.
Finally, the Minister submitted that there was nothing to suggest that the Tribunal was wrong to conclude that the applicant was not enrolled in a course of study. The evidence presented by the applicant was to that effect. The Tribunal, in those circumstances, could not have done otherwise than conclude that the applicant was not eligible for the visa (Nadeem v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1498, at [4] per Horan J).
In reply, the applicant sought to present CoE documents that he located on his mobile phone. Those documents already formed part of the evidence contained in the Court Book and did not concern enrolments in courses of study beyond December 2018 (CB 33-38).
CONSIDERATION
The duty of the Tribunal when undertaking a review of a decision pursuant to s 348 of the Act is as described by French CJ in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18 at [10]:
As appears from the nature of the powers conferred on these tribunals, the review each must undertake involves a fresh consideration of the application which led to the decision under review. The review must be based on the evidence and arguments placed before the tribunal and any other relevant information which the tribunal itself obtains. Each tribunal must identify for itself the issue that arise in the application before it. It is not confined to the issues considered by the delegate. There are similarities to the kind of review provided by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal…, described by Brennan J in Bushell v Repatriation Commission as:
“an administrative decision-maker, under a duty to arrive at the correct or preferable decision in the case before it according to the material before it.”.
(citations omitted)
See also Gageler J at [93].
Section 65(1)(b) of the Act provides that after considering a valid application for a visa, the Minister, if not satisfied that criteria prescribed by the Act or the regulations for the visa have been satisfied, is to refuse the visa. When undertaking its review function, the Tribunal is similarly required to consider whether the criteria prescribed by the Act or the regulations for the visa have been satisfied.
The relevant criteria required to be satisfied for the visa are set out in Sch 2 of the Regulations. Clause 500.2, which sets out the primary criteria for the visa, provides that all criteria must be satisfied “at the time a decision is made on the application”. This necessarily includes any decision made by the Tribunal on review. Clause 500.211 sets out the following criteria:
One of the following applies:
(a) the applicant is enrolled in a course of study;
(b) if the application is made in Australia – the applicant is seeking to remain in Australia because the relevant educational institution requires the applicant to do so during the marking of the applicant’s postgraduate thesis;
(c) if the applicant is a Foreign Affairs student – the applicant has the support of the Foreign Minister for the grant of the visa;
(d) if the applicant is a Defence Student – the applicant has the support of the Defence Minister for the grant of the visa.
There is no suggestion that sub-clauses 500.211(b)-(d) are relevant to this matter. “Course of study” is a defined term. Clause 500.111 relevantly provides that for the purposes of this part of the Regulations, course of study means a “full-time registered course”.
At the time of the delegate’s decision, the applicant satisfied cl 500.211(a). The delegate’s refusal of the applicant’s visa was on other grounds, namely that he did not satisfy the GTE requirements pursuant to cl 500.212.
On 5 March 2019, the Tribunal found that that the applicant was not enrolled in a course of study and was therefore unable to meet the requirements of cl 500.211. In reaching that conclusion, it relied on the evidence provided by the applicant both before and during the hearing. The applicant does not suggest that the Tribunal erred in reaching that conclusion. It did not err. The finding was the only one open on the evidence before it.
Plainly, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that the delegate’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application for the visa was the correct and preferable decision, albeit on a different basis. When considering provisions analogous to ss 359 and 360 of the Act, the High Court in SZBEL stated the following (emphasis added):
[33] The Act defines the nature of the opportunity to be heard that is to be given to an applicant for review by the Tribunal. The applicant is to be invited "to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review"…The reference to "the issues arising in relation to the decision under review" is important.
[34] Those issues will not be sufficiently identified in every case by describing them simply as whether the applicant is entitled to a visa. The statutory language "arising in relation to the decision under review" is more particular. The issues arising in relation to a decision under review are to be identified having regard not only to the fact that the Tribunal may exercise…all the powers and discretions conferred by the Act on the original decision-maker (here, the Minister's delegate), but also to the fact that the Tribunal is to review that particular decision, for which the decision-maker will have given reasons.
[35] The Tribunal is not confined to whatever may have been the issues that the delegate considered. The issues that arise in relation to the decision are to be identified by the Tribunal. But if the Tribunal takes no step to identify some issue other than those that the delegate considered dispositive, and does not tell the applicant what that other issue is, the applicant is entitled to assume that the issues the delegate considered dispositive are "the issues arising in relation to the decision under review". That is why the point at which to begin the identification of issues arising in relation to the decision under review will usually be the reasons given for that decision. And unless some other additional issues are identified by the Tribunal (as they may be), it would ordinarily follow that, on review by the Tribunal, the issues arising in relation to the decision under review would be those which the original decision-maker identified as determinative against the applicant.
[36] It is also important to recognise that the invitation to an applicant to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and make submissions is an invitation that need not be extended if the Tribunal considers that it should decide the review in the applicant's favour. Ordinarily then, as was the case here, the Tribunal will begin its interview of an applicant who has accepted the Tribunal's invitation to appear, knowing that it is not persuaded by the material already before it to decide the review in the applicant's favour. That lack of persuasion may be based on particular questions the Tribunal has about specific aspects of the material already before it; it may be based on nothing more particular than a general unease about the veracity of what is revealed in that material. But unless the Tribunal tells the applicant something different, the applicant would be entitled to assume that the reasons given by the delegate for refusing to grant the application will identify the issues that arise in relation to that decision.
In this case, the Tribunal identified in its decision that the dispositive issue was whether the applicant was enrolled in a course of study at the time of its decision. While that was not the dispositive issue for the delegate, it was identified by the Tribunal, prior to the review hearing, as an issue that arose in the context of the review it was to undertake. It did so in the correspondence set out at [3] and [5] above. It did so during the course of the Tribunal hearing by questioning the applicant as to whether he was currently enrolled or had a current offer of enrolment. Not only was the issue identified, but the applicant was afforded multiple opportunities to present evidence that was capable of satisfying the cl 500.211 criterion.
In my view, the Tribunal complied with its procedural fairness obligations and the statutory scheme.
I have also considered whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness when the hearing proceeded in the absence of the applicant’s migration agent. I accept the Minister’s submissions on this issue. First, no application was made for the hearing to adjourn. Secondly, even the most skilful representative could not have persuaded the Tribunal to make another decision. It was, as I have already observed, the only decision open on the evidence before it. In the circumstances, I do not consider that the Tribunal acted unreasonably in proceeding to hear and determine the matter in the absence of the applicant’s migration agent.
The applicant’s grounds of review as set out in his application were principally directed at whether the applicant ought to have been found to meet the GTE requirements under cl 500.212. It is not the role of this Court to undertake a merits review of the Tribunal’s decision: see Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259. To the extent the Tribunal failed to consider whether the requirements pursuant to cl 500.212 were satisfied, it was entitled to do so. Having found that an integral element of the relevant criteria was not satisfied, it foreclosed any possibility of a favourable outcome: c.f Dait v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 288 FCR 1; [2022] FCAFC 25 at [32] per Jagot, Bromwich and Lee JJ.
It is also not open to conclude that the Tribunal’s decision was illogical, irrational or unreasonable. Rather, its conclusion that the applicant did not meet the primary criteria pursuant to cl 500.211 was arrived at logically or rationally on the available material: Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 289 FCR 21; [2022] FCAFC 3 at [35] per Allsop CJ, Besanko and O’Callaghan JJ.
In short, the application fails to identify any jurisdictional error. In addition, I have also carefully considered the materials before me and am also satisfied that the Tribunal did not fall into jurisdictional error when affirming the decision to refuse the visa.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, I dismiss the application as amended.
The Minister indicated that it sought costs in the fixed sum of $5,000 in the event that it was successful in these proceedings. I am satisfied it is appropriate to award costs in that amount. It falls well short of the scale of costs in migration matters set out in Sch 2, Pt 2 of the Rules.
I certify that the preceding forty-four (44) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Cuthbertson. Associate:
Dated: 16 September 2024
0