Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

Case •

[2024] FedCFamC2G 1121

•

13 November 2024

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 1121

File number(s): MLG 1250 of 2019
Judgment of: JUDGE CORBETT
Date of judgment: 13 November 2024
Catchwords: MIGRATION – Student (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa – application for judicial review - withdrawal from course enrolments - weight to be attributed in domain of the Tribunal - comparison with previous decisions of tribunals is misconceived – application for judicial review dismissed.
Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 476(1), 359(2), 499

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cls 500.212, 500.211 - 500.218

Cases cited:

Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 16

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li & Anor. [2013] HCA 18

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392

Plaintiff M1/2021v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17

Tran v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 209

WAEE v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 54
Date of last submission/s: 17 October 2024
Date of hearing: 17 October 2024
Place: Melbourne
Solicitor for the Applicant The applicant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondents Ms Petrovski, Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

MLG 1250 of 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:

JASPREET SINGH

Applicant
AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CORBETT

DATE OF ORDER:

13 NOVEMBER 2024

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

2.The name of the second respondent be amended to Administrative Review Tribunal.

3.The application for judicial review filed 26 April 2019 be dismissed.

4.The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the proceeding 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 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 CORBETT

  1. The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (Tribunal) made 26 March 2019. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa (Visa).

  2. References in these reasons to “CB” pages are references to the Court Book that was tendered and admitted as evidence at the hearing before this Court on 17 October 2024, marked exhibit “R1”.

  3. The application is brought pursuant to s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act). To obtain relief from this Court, the applicant must show jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

    BACKGROUND

  4. The applicant is a citizen of India. He first arrived in Australia on 4 February 2014 on a Student (Class TU) (Subclass 573) visa (CB 57).

  5. From February 2014 until January 2017, the applicant enrolled in the following courses (CB 127):

    (a)Certificate IV of Accounting and Diploma of Accounting at Chisholm Institute

    (b)Bachelor of Accounting at La Trobe University

    (c)Certificate III in Painting and Decorating at Della International College

    (d)Diploma of Building and Construction (Management) at Della International College

  6. The applicant completed the Certificate III in Painting and Decorating, as well as the Diploma of Building and Construction (Management), however, he did not complete the accounting courses (CB 127).

  7. On 15 March 2017, the applicant applied for the Visa seeking to extend his student visa (CB 1–17). He indicated his desire to undertake further study (CB 12) and intention to study a Bachelor of Building and Construction at Della International College (CB 24).

  8. On 24 July 2017, a delegate of the Minister refused the Visa application on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy cl 500.212 of Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) (CB 55-61).

  9. On 12 August 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision (CB 62-3).

  10. On 9 January 2019, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide information by 23 January 2019 in accordance with s 359(2) of the Act (CB 73-81).

  11. The applicant submitted an online “Request for Student Visa Information” (s 359 Response) in response to the invitation (CB 122-31).

  12. On 31 January 2019, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 18 February 2019 and requested that the applicant provide a current Certificate of Enrolment, evidence of his past studies and a written statement addressing the genuine temporary entrant criteria in cl 500.212 of the Regulations (CB 82-6).

  13. On 15 February 2019, the applicant’s migration agent responded to the Tribunal and provided the following documentation (CB 92-117):

    (e)Confirmation of enrolment in Advanced Diploma of Business with Stott’s College from 9 April 2018 to 14 March 2019

    (f)Confirmation of enrolment in Bachelor of Business with Stott’s College from 17 March 2019 to 31 December 2019

    (g)Completed response to hearing invitation dated 15 February 2019

    (h)Various academic documents from India and Australia

    (i)Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) statement of the applicant (CB 110-5)

    (j)Bank account statement of the applicant.

  14. On 18 February 2019, the applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal and was assisted by his migration agent and an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages (CB 119-21).

  15. On 26 March 2019, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review (Decision) (CB 133-40).

    TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

  16. In the Decision, the Tribunal undertook a full merits review of the application for the Visa. The Tribunal set out the background to the application and the relevant legislative criteria for the grant of the Visa, specifically the requirements in cl 500.211 to cl.500.218 of Sch 2 to the Regulations. The Tribunal also noted that, in considering whether the applicant satisfied cl 500.212(a), it must have regard to Ministerial Direction No. 69 made under s 499 of the Act (CB 136-7).

  17. The Tribunal then considered the applicant’s evidence, and the documents provided by him, including the GTE statement.

  18. The Tribunal recorded that the applicant arrived in Australia on 4 February 2014 on a Student (Class TU) (Subclass 573) visa to study a Certificate IV in Accounting and then a Diploma of Accounting. The applicant did not complete those courses, and the enrolments were subsequently cancelled (CB 137 [12]). The Tribunal accepted the explanation given by the applicant of a gap in his studies between December 2014 and June 2015 due to the applicant trying to find a Confirmation of Enrolment for a new course which had taken longer than he anticipated (CB 137 [13]).

  19. The Tribunal also had regard to the applicant’s evidence that he had only departed from Australia on one occasion in November 2016 for a period of one and a half months to return to his receiving country to visit family and attend his sister’s wedding (CB 137 [14]).

  20. The Tribunal considered cl 14(b)(iii) of Ministerial Direction No. 69 and was of the view that the applicant had undertaken a series of short, inexpensive VET sector courses, and was using the student visa programme primarily for maintaining ongoing residence in Australia (CB 138 [15]-[16]).

  21. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s statement that he believed that gaining an international qualification would enhance his employment opportunities upon his return to India. The Tribunal acknowledged that a Bachelor of Business, or similar course, was available in India and found that the applicant did not have reasonable grounds for not undertaking a Bachelor of Business in his home country or region (CB 138 [17]).

  22. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant’s evidence that he has personal ties in his home country, being his father, mother and one sister, who he claims to maintain contact with daily. The applicant told the Tribunal that he has a sister who resides in Canada and another sister living in Australia. On this basis, the Tribunal did not consider that the applicant’s personal ties overseas would serve as a significant incentive to return to India and for him to cease residing in Australia (CB 138 [18]).

  23. The Tribunal further considered the applicant’s evidence that before arriving in Australia, he had only completed his Year 12 equivalent in March 2013 and had not previously worked. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s evidence that he sometimes sends money back to his home country of India. It further considered that the applicant had been gainfully employed since arriving in Australia and had recently commenced part-time employment as a painter with a friend (CB 138 [19]-[20]).

  24. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s living circumstances, particularly that he resides with his sister and her husband, and that the applicant made contributions towards rent (CB 138 [20]). The Tribunal had regard to the applicant never having worked prior to coming to Australia, finding that his economic circumstances in Australia would present a strong incentive for him not to return to India (CB 138 [20]).

  25. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant’s evidence that, at the time of the hearing, the applicant was in the final stages of completing an Advanced Diploma of Business through Stotts College. The Tribunal recognised that the applicant was due to finish the course in March 2019 and submitted a Confirmation of Enrolment for a Bachelor of Business commencing 16 March 2019 and to be completed by 31 December 2020 (CB 139 [24]). It had regard to the applicant’s evidence that upon his return to India, he intends to run his own painting and decorating business. Nevertheless, having considered the applicant’s relevant qualifications and work experience, the Tribunal was of the view that the applicant was using the student visa programme to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme and to maintain ongoing residence in Australia (CB 139 [24]).

  26. The Tribunal accepted that the Bachelor of Business is the next qualification the applicant should be enrolled in, however, having considered his previous enrolment history and his failure to complete any of the courses for which he was granted his initial student visa, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would complete the course. The Tribunal noted that he was unable to provide the Tribunal with further details regarding his proposed future painting and decorating business in India and found his plans to be speculative and vague. The applicant was unable to elaborate on his future remuneration other than stating he would be paid well due to having international qualifications. The Tribunal found there was insufficient information before it as to the remuneration he could expect to receive in India, or a third country, compared to Australia. Based on the evidence before it at the hearing, the Tribunal was also of the view that the relevance of the Bachelor of Business course to the applicant’s proposed future employment, either in India or a third country, was not persuasive given his evidence about commencing his own painting and decorating business. The Tribunal found that the applicant had already gained the relevant qualifications and work experience to pursue his business in the painting and decorating domain in India and that his primary reason for remaining in Australia was to maintain ongoing residence (CB 139 [25]-[26]).

    PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT

  27. The applicant’s judicial review application was filed on 26 April 2019. On 10 April 2024, Registrar Cummings made orders permitting the applicant to file an amended application, written submissions and any additional material in support of his application on or before 24 April 2024. The applicant did not however, avail himself to the opportunity.

  28. The application for judicial review identified the following grounds of review (verbatim):

    •To Revoke and not to refuse my application for the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

    •Similar cases overturned/remits in 1005524 [2012] MRTA 8095 (17 September 2012)

    •Similar cases overturned 1407092 [2014] MRTA 2471 (14 Octoberr 2014)

    •Similar cases overturned 1001202 [2012] MRTA 572 (28 February 2012)

    The above overturned cases are very similar to my case, here is summary:

    I applied for the Visa on 15 March 2017. At the time of application, Class TU

    contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian).

    The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet

    the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

    But I refused to grant the Visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (theRegulations) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.

    I appeared before the Tribunal on 18 February 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.

    I JASPREET SINGH D.O.B: 22/06/1995 arrived in Australia on 4 February 2014 on a Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590, 573 Student visa to study Certificate IV in Accounting and a Diploma of Accounting leading to a Bachelor of Accounting. I did not complete the above courses as my interest is completely changed. There is a little gap in my studies while I was trying to get a Confirmation of Enrolment for a new course in my field of interest and it took longer than I had expected. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s reasons for the gap in my studies. Afterwards I completed my a Certificate III in Painting and Decorating in November 2016, a Diploma of Building and Construction (Management) in January 2018 and the course in which I am currently enrolled is Advanced Diploma of Business in March 2019. As I have plans of business of painting and decorating in India after my studies. I still have my pending studies which I wanted to complete. I assumed lodging the student visa would resolve the issue with the department.

    I am requesting the Tribunal officer to revoke my student visa application and not to refuse my application under NATURAL JUSTICE in compelling and compassionate reasons under Ministerial Direction no. 65 and consider Visa application under

    1.   Ministerial Direction no. 65: I requesting the Tribunal officer to revoke my appication for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to grant a student Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian).

    2.   From the time I arrived in Australia I was a genuine student so i have completed all my courses in which I had my Interest. I have paid all my fees and I wanted to complete my Degree course too.

    3. Based on above facts that I am seeking for natural justice. and to revoke and to refuse my Student Visa application under cl. 572.223 and 572.332 of schedule 2 to the Regulations

  29. The application was supported by a short form affidavit affirmed 24 April 2019 that annexed the Decision.

  30. The hearing of the application took place on 17 October 2024. The applicant appeared in person and Ms Petrovski, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Minister.

  31. The Court confirmed that the applicant had received the Court Book and the Minister’s outline of written submissions filed 1 May 2024. The Court Book was tendered and marked exhibit “R1”.

  32. Noting that the applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave him the opportunity to elaborate on, and further articulate his grounds of review and to inform the Court of the basis on which the Tribunal made any jurisdictional error.

  33. To assist the applicant, the Court informed him that this Court must only turn its attention to the issue of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision, and that the Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal’s decision to grant the Visa that is sought. Rather, the function of this Court is restricted to determining if the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at the decision it arrived at: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 (Wu Shan Liang).

    APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS

  34. The applicant made various submissions in support of the application for judicial review but did not seek to identify any particular jurisdictional errors. Instead, he explained that the Tribunal was wrong to reject his application for the Visa because:

    ·     He produced physical copies of his course enrolments and certificates of completion to the Tribunal. He had therefore done what was asked of him.

    ·     He completed the Certificate III course in Painting and Decorating and the Diploma of Building and Construction (Management) course and was enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Business which, upon completion would lead to a Bachelor of Business degree. He had not completed the Bachelor of Accounting degree because he did not have or complete the Diploma of Accounting course in which he was enrolled, but this did not mean he did not intend to be a student and continue to study in Australia.

    ·     The Tribunal was wrong to say that he had no incentive to return to India. His parents live in India with one of his sisters and he has two other sisters, one that lives in Canada and one that lives in Australia with whom he now lives. This did not mean that he did not intend to return to India in the future and it was his intention to return upon completion of a Bachelor of Business degree. He has always been a genuine student and paid all enrolment fees.

    ·     The Tribunal was wrong to conclude that sending money back to India did not show he had strong ties to India and intended to return there after completion of his studies.

    ·     The Tribunal should not have had regard to the five-month gap in his studies because he was simply awaiting documents relating to a change of course at Chisholm Institute. This was explained in his GTE statement.

    ·     He did not have “strong ties” to the local community merely because he was attending temple, the Tribunal was wrong to say this, and that the Tribunal placed too much weight on this factor.

    ·     The decision to refuse his application effected his future and had an effect on him personally and that was not properly considered by the Tribunal under paragraphs 12 and 16 of the Ministerial Direction No. 69.

    ·     The Tribunal placed too much weight on how long it had taken him to complete his courses and that he was not in Australia just to work but that he was a genuine student that paid tuition fees in advance for his chosen courses. His future plans were an important consideration that was not given enough weight by the Tribunal.

    MINISTER’S SUBMISSIONS

  35. On behalf of the Minister, it was submitted that the grounds identified by the applicant in the application and his submissions to the Court failed to establish any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. Rather, the applicant’s submissions were factual statements which did not identify any legal or other error and were to the effect that the Tribunal should have made a different decision based on the evidence before it. The applicant was essentially restating his claim to be a genuine student and not identifying error in the reasoning or procedure of the Tribunal.

  1. The reference to similar cases considered by the Tribunal and its predecessors in the application for judicial review was misconceived. The Tribunal was required to consider the merits of the application for the Visa on its merits, which it did, and was not bound by any decision of any other Tribunal. This also applied to the consideration of the guidance given in Ministerial Direction No. 69, which is not to be used as a checklist but a guide when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole.

  2. The solicitor for the Minister referred to Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 16 at [7] where Logan J observed that an application for review of an application for a student visa was:

    … a routine, merits based evaluation in the course of public administration. It was not just inherently specific to the material before the Tribunal but also reactive to the way in which the [applicant] had put [his] claim for the visa over the course of an administrative decision making continuum that culminated in the hearing conducted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s reasons rationally explained why having regard to the Minister’s directions and the material before it, there was an absence of satisfaction by the Tribunal that the [applicant] was a genuine student. They were sufficient unto the day.

  3. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal noted in its Decision that it was required to have regard to Ministerial Direction No. 69, specifically the applicant’s immigration history, circumstances in their home country, circumstances in Australia and the value of the course to the applicant’s future.

  4. The solicitor for the Minister also cited Tran v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 209 at [5]-[7], where the Court stated that the weight to be attributed to the evidence was in the domain of the Tribunal.

  5. Finally, reliance was placed on the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia decision in WAEE v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184 at [46] per French Sackville and Hely JJ where the Court said:

    It is plainly not necessary for the Tribunal to refer to every piece of evidence and every contention made by an applicant in its written reasons. It may be that some evidence is irrelevant to the criteria and some contentions misconceived. Moreover, there is a distinction between the Tribunal failing to advert to evidence which, if accepted, might have led it to make a different finding of fact (cf Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [87]-[97]) and a failure by the Tribunal to address a contention which, if accepted, might establish that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. The Tribunal is not a court. It is an administrative body operating in an environment which requires the expeditious determination of a high volume of applications. Each of the applications it decides is, of course, of great importance. Some of its decisions may literally be life and death decisions for the applicant. Nevertheless, it is an administrative body and not a court and its reasons are not to be scrutinised `with an eye keenly attuned to error'. Nor is it necessarily required to provide reasons of the kind that might be expected of a court of law.

  6. In reply, the applicant said that he was unable to provide the Tribunal with all the necessary information he wanted it to consider at the hearing, but that he intends to continue with his studies and is a genuine student. He also clarified that he had previously sent approximately $5,000.00 to his father for the purpose of making an investment for him in India and that was a fact that showed he had strong ties to India and intended to return upon completion of his studies.

    CONSIDERATION

  7. The role of the Court is to determine if the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error. The Court is not permitted to undertake a review of the merits of the Decision (see Wu Shan Liang at 272).

  8. The Court has scrutinised the application, the materials before the Tribunal contained in the Court Book and the Decision to identify jurisdictional error, noting the Court’s obligations as outlined in MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392 at [58], [77], [100], [112], [113] and [114]. The applicant was asked if there were any further documents or matters that should have been placed before the Tribunal that were not, and whether there was any other aspect of the hearing before the Tribunal that he considered unfair or wrong. The applicant did not wish to rely on any further documents or submissions at the hearing before the Court. Instead, the applicant directed his submissions to a reconsideration of the weight to be given to the evidence considered by the Tribunal.

  9. The issue to be determined by the Tribunal when considering afresh the application for the Visa, was whether the applicant satisfied the criteria in cl 500.212(a) of Sch 2 of the Regulations. In doing so, the Tribunal was required to have regard to Ministerial Direction No. 69 and any other relevant information provided by the applicant or otherwise available to the decision maker. The Decision reflects that this was in fact done by the Tribunal on this application for review.

  10. The grounds of review contained in the application for review are a simple recital of the facts upon which the applicant sought to rely before the Tribunal and which he considered were important to his cause. No other jurisdictional error was identified by the applicant.

  11. The applicant’s grounds of review referenced previous decisions of the Migration Review Tribunal (grounds one to four of the application for review). These were decisions regarding student visa applications, but for the reasons submitted by the Minister, comparison with previous decisions of tribunals is misconceived. The role of the Tribunal is to conduct a fresh review of the merits of the application based on the information provided to it by the Minister and the applicant (see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li & Anor. [2013] HCA 18 at [10] per French CJ) (Li)). The role of the Tribunal is not to assess or weigh the applicant’s evidence by reference to other similar fact situations, but to assess and weigh each application and assess the issues that arise in the application before it. The weight to be given to the evidence submitted in support of an application for review is a matter for the Tribunal. In Plaintiff M1/2021v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 , the High Court of Australia (per Keifel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ at [24]) said:

    Consistently with well-established authority in different statutory contexts, there can be no doubt that a decision-maker must read, identify, understand and evaluate the representations [41]. Adopting and adapting what Kiefel J (as her Honour then was) said in Tickner v Chapman [42], the decision-maker must have regard to what is said in the representations, bring their mind to bear upon the facts stated in them and the arguments or opinions put forward, and appreciate who is making them. From that point, the decision‑maker might sift them, attributing whatever weight or persuasive quality is thought appropriate. The weight to be afforded to the representations is a matter for the decision-maker [43]. And the decision-maker is not obliged "to make actual findings of fact as an adjudication of all material claims" made by a former visa holder [44].

  12. The obligation to consider claims and evidence requires the Tribunal to bring their mind to bear to the facts as presented to it by the applicant. That is what occurred in this case and there is nothing unreasonable or illogical about the conclusions reached or the inferences drawn from the available evidence. The conclusion reached in the Decision was rationally open to the decision maker (see Li at [30], [76]). Accordingly, there was no jurisdictional error and the application for judicial review must be dismissed.

    COSTS

  13. At the conclusion of the submissions before this Court, the solicitor for the Minister sought an order for costs in the event that the application for judicial review was dismissed. The Minister sought costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application for judicial review in the sum of $5,000.00 which is less than the applicable scale and is fair and reasonable.

    OTHER MATTERS

  14. At the conclusion of the hearing, the solicitor for the Minister sought an order that the name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

  15. Further, as a consequence of the passage of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No 1) Act 2024 (Cth), the name of the second respondent is to be amended to the Administrative Review Tribunal.

    ORDERS

  16. The name of the first respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

  17. The name of the second respondent be amended to Administrative Review Tribunal.

  18. The application for judicial review filed 26 April 2019 be dismissed.

  19. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the proceeding fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Corbett.

Associate:

Dated:13 November 2024

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

8

Statutory Material Cited

2

Plaintiff M47/2018 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] HCA 17
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6
Save the Ridge Inc v National Capital Authority [2004] FCAFC 209