Sriram Mani v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2013] HCASL 96

SRIRAM MANI

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 96
S353/2012

1. The applicant is a citizen of India.  He was granted a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa on 14 April 2008.  A condition for such a visa is that the holder maintains satisfactory course progress.  On 25 January 2011, a delegate of the first respondent cancelled the applicant's visa on the basis that the applicant failed to comply with this condition.

2. On 2 September 2011, the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision.  The applicant had been certified, on 18 November 2010, as not achieving satisfactory course progress by his then-education provider.  The Tribunal considered that his explanation for having been so certified, namely that he had been stressed about his father's ill-health, did not amount to an exceptional circumstance beyond his control.  In making this finding, the Tribunal had considered "Direction No 38" promulgated by the first respondent under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), which required the Tribunal to have due regard to advice from certain government departments. It found that in the applicant's case, there was no such relevant advice.

3. On 22 June 2012, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (Cameron FM) dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.

4. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Yates J) was unsuccessful. Yates J observed that the applicant's arguments substantially repeated those pursued in the Federal Magistrates Court. His Honour found no error in the holdings of Cameron FM. Yates J held there was no merit in the applicant's contention that the Tribunal breached s 359A of the Act by failing to provide him with "information". The absence of advice relevant to Direction No 38 was not information within the meaning of s 359A. Yates J rejected the argument that the Tribunal had breached s 360 of the Act and held that it had carried out its review in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

5. The application for special leave to appeal to this Court does not raise any question of law that would justify a grant of special leave.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Federal Court's decision.  Special leave is refused.

6. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

S.M. Kiefel
5 June 2013 P.A. Keane