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

The applicants in the case of Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs are non-citizens who applied for student visas on 27 October 2015. The primary applicant and his spouse and child were included in the application as a family unit. The delegate of the Minister refused to grant the student visa on 5 September 2016, citing a lack of satisfaction that the primary applicant was a genuine temporary entrant and that the other applicants were members of the family unit of a person who holds a student visa. The applicants appealed to the Tribunal, which affirmed the delegate’s decision on 17 November 2017. The applicants subsequently sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.

The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error, which would entitle the applicants to relief. Jurisdictional error encompasses several categories, such as identifying a wrong issue, asking the wrong question, ignoring relevant material, relying on irrelevant material, making an erroneous finding or reaching a mistaken conclusion, and failing to observe applicable requirements of procedural fairness. The court had to examine whether the Tribunal had made such an error in its decision.

The court found that the Tribunal did not commit any jurisdictional error. The Tribunal correctly identified that the primary issue was whether the primary applicant met the genuine temporary entrant criterion. However, the Tribunal did not need to assess this criterion because it determined that the primary applicant did not meet the mandatory enrolment requirement. The Tribunal noted that the only certificate of enrolment provided by the primary applicant had been cancelled, and that he was not enrolled in any relevant course of study. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the primary applicant had an offer of enrolment, actual confirmed enrolment, or a certificate of enrolment for a relevant course of study which was not cancelled or expired. The court held that the Tribunal’s decision was based on a proper consideration of the enrolment requirement and that there was no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review and held that there was no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision.