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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed the refusal of a subclass 485 visa to the applicant, an Indian national. The applicant had applied for the visa in September 2012. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship requested further information, including a skills assessment, which the applicant failed to provide. Consequently, a delegate of the Minister refused the visa on 4 March 2013, finding the applicant did not satisfy clause 485.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) due to the lack of a skills assessment. The Tribunal subsequently affirmed this decision after the applicant failed to attend a hearing or provide further documentation. The applicant then sought review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Court.

The applicant raised two grounds of review: that the Tribunal failed to accord him natural justice and procedural fairness, and that he should have been allowed an opportunity to obtain a suitable skills assessment. In his affidavit, the applicant also stated that the Tribunal should have given him one opportunity to obtain his skills assessment. Before the Court, the applicant, appearing unrepresented, initially stated that the Tribunal had made no mistake. He later explained that his application had been completed by a friend who made errors and refused to rectify them, and also claimed to have experienced a period of depression, though no medical evidence was produced to support this.

Blake J dismissed the application for review. The Court noted that the Tribunal had invited the applicant to attend a hearing and provide documents, but he failed to do either. The Tribunal correctly identified the criteria for the visa, including the requirement under clause 485.221 for a skills assessment by the relevant authority, Trades Recognition Australia, for the nominated occupation of 'Baker'. As the applicant had not provided proof of such an assessment, the Tribunal was correct in finding that he did not satisfy this criterion. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's decision to proceed on the available material and affirmed the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant did not meet the requirements for the visa.