Tham (Migration)

Tham (Migration) [2021] AATA 429 (17 February 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Ms Tian Sin Tham
CASE NUMBER:  1914877
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/1172362
MEMBER:Elizabeth Tueno
DATE:17 February 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 17 February 2021 at 4:27pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – visa and study history – several courses not completed – enrolment in lower-level course in different subject area since delegate’s decision – availability of similar courses in home country – personal and economic ties – vague plans for future business – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359(2)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212(a)
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 28 May 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 8 March 2019. 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.
The delegate in this case 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 (the Regulations). The delegate was not satisfied the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant requirement for a student visa.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 October 2020 by telephone due the Covid-19 restrictions to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent, although her agent did not attend the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
Clause 500.212 requires as follows:
The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:
(a)the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
(i)the applicant’s circumstances; and
(ii)the applicant’s immigration history; and
(iii)if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
(iv)any other relevant matter; and
(b)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:
(i)the applicant’s record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and
(ii)the applicant’s stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and
(c)of any other relevant matter.
Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?
In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.69, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction, which is attached to this decision, requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:
·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;
·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;
·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.
The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence and the submissions of her migration agent together with the documents filed with the Tribunal and the contents of the Department’s file.
The applicant is a 26 year old woman from Malaysia, who arrived in Australia on 27 April 2016 on a visitor visa but was subsequently granted a student visa which remained valid until March 2019. During her time in Australia, she has been enrolled in the following courses:
·     Diploma of Software Development – did not complete;
·     Certificate III in Business – completed in November 2018;
·     Certificate IV in Business – did not complete;
·     Diploma of Business – did not complete; and
·     Diploma of Leadership and Management – completed in August 2020.
The applicant is currently enrolled in a Certificate III in Patisserie that commenced on 6 October 2020 and will end on 26 September 2021 (“the proposed course”).
In her s.359(2) questionnaire response, the applicant stated,
There is no doubt that I could find the similar course in my home country or easily online, but pursuing overseas study is never just about getting the qualification but also about getting wider network and improving communication skills as well as being more independent. Especially for girls, I think it is vital to broaden horizon and experience as much as we can when we are still young, because when I have my own family, I will need to sacrifice my dream to take the responsibility as a wife and a mother. During the overseas study journey, it’s been tiring and stressful as I need to keep up with the study, catch up with friends and take care of myself, and sometime experiencing homesick which is not as easy as I expected. But as the result, I became more independent and understand how important my family is, so I would never take my family for granted and I would instead spend more time with them when I can. All those things I could learn is impossible to be measured in a monetary term and would be hard to understand as if I were studying in Malaysia. Getting out of the comfort zone is hard but is definitely rewarding.
At the hearing, she confirmed that there are pastry courses taught in Malaysia, but she does not believe the education system there “works for her”. She said it is more theoretical than practical and here in Australia she can also improve her English skills.
The Tribunal understands the applicant’s evidence to be that whilst there are similar courses she could be studying in her home country, she wants to study overseas to learn to become more independent before she has a family of her own. She also thinks the courses taught in Malaysia are too theoretical and not practical enough and that she will be able to improve her English skills in Australia.
The applicant has already had the opportunity to live, study and improve her English skills whilst residing in Australia for a number of years prior to making this application for a second student visa. She has already been able to learn about independence and the importance of her family after being away from them for years. She has already experienced a “broadening of her horizons” after living in Australia for the last four and a half years. A generalised statement that patisserie courses in Malaysia are more theoretical than practical is a very vague and generalised statement about all the education providers that might provide such a course and the applicant did not go into specifics about this. Taking these matters into account, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has sound reasons for not undertaking the proposed course when there are similar courses available in her home country.
The applicant’s parents and brother all reside in Malaysia and she said that she often messages them and calls them at least twice a week. After her initial visitor visa, she returned to Malaysia for one month. Since then, she returned in March 2018 for 10 days and again in December 2019 for 8 days to visit family. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has personal ties to her home country because of her family living there. However, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has been able to maintain her relationship with family members whilst living in Australia for the last four and a half years, having only returned to Malaysia during that time for less than two months in total, and such these personal ties would not be a significant incentive to return to Malaysia.
The applicant confirmed at the hearing that she owns no assets or property. Her only job she mentioned in Malaysia was as a marketing trainee from January to March 2016. She appears to have earnt around AUS $1700 in that role. Since arriving in Australia, the applicant worked as a food and beverage attendant at Plaza Premium Lounge for nearly two years up until September 2019 and was earning around $25,000 per annum. She said that upon her return to Malaysia, she wants to run her own café and that her plan is to earn around RM 7,000 per month (approximately AUS $2,234 per month) but has no business plan other than some basic ideas to told the Tribunal about, as detailed below. She said that it will be much easier for her to open a café in Malaysia than in Australia. Despite her plan to open a café, the Tribunal finds that her lack of assets and property mean that she has no real financial ties to her home country and given that she has had steady employment during her time in Australia compared to only a three month position as a trainee in Malaysia, the Tribunal considers the applicant has been in a stronger financial position in Australia than in Malaysia. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s economic circumstances would be significant incentive to not return to Malaysia.
There is no evidence that the applicant is using the student visa to avoid military service commitments or because of any political or civil unrest in her home country.
The Tribunal has considered the value of the proposed course to the applicant’s future. Prior to coming to Australia, the highest level of education the applicant had completed was a Bachelor of Business in her home country. Since coming to Australia, she has only studied lower level vocational courses, having completed a Certificate III in Business and a Diploma in Leadership and Management. She has never studied a food or hospitality course previously. Even taking into account the change in career path the applicant is wanting to now pursue, the Tribunal is not convinced that the proposed course is consistent with her current level of education.
She told the Tribunal at the hearing that she wants to start her own café and that the proposed course will help her with this because she will then have the “necessary skills to create products”. She said that the café will be open from 11:00am to 8:00pm, she will have staff and her own role will be to make the patisseries, serve customers and make coffee. She said she does not think she will be able to open the café if she does not complete the Certificate III because she wants to be able to do something unique with it. She said that she would be making the cakes/pastries every day and gave the example of a strawberry and watermelon cake and an “egg yolk” cheesecake. She said she was thinking about “east/west” products.
She also told the Tribunal that she has always enjoyed watching television cooking shows and that she decided to study patisserie when completing her Diploma in Leadership and Management. She was living in Surry Hills, Sydney, and liked the cafes around that area. In the written submissions from her migration agent, it was said that after working in food and beverage, she realised that the “coffee culture” in Australia is very popular and this has prompted her to want to have her own café. She also stated,
[a]s I was working in Food and Beverage casually, that was when I realise that the café culture in Australia is very popular and in Malaysia, the trends are also growing exponentially [sic] and this is a good chance for me to start my own café. Since I am already in Australia, I think this is a good opportunity for me to understand the culture in Australia and bring in new ideas. Besides understanding the Australian working environment, the menus of a café also plays an important part in attracting customers in and since I love pastry a lot, I feel that I need to have the skills and knowledge to create new menus and be creative to standout from other cafes. So, after I completed my Diploma in Leadership and Management, I decided to enrol myself in Patisserie to learn the skills and knowledge needed for me to open a café in the future. The end of these courses will help to build my confidence and I believe that it will help to build and grow my business and will definitely have the capability to do it better than other cafes in Malaysia.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that she would not be able to open a café without this course. Thousands of cafes are operated around Australia and vast majority would have little to no experience in patisserie. Furthermore, it does not appear that the applicant has ever even worked in a café. It appears the extent of her food and beverage experience is limited to her work the Plaza Premium Lounge, which is a bar located at the Sydney International Airport. If the applicant was as interested in learning about the Australian café then it would be a logical step to work for one to gain first-hand experience rather than simply visiting them as a customer. The Tribunal does not accept that a Certificate III in Patisserie is going to be of great assistance to the applicant in opening and running her own café. There is a lot more to running a café than making cakes and pastries.
For the above reasons, the Tribunal is not convinced that the proposed course will assist the applicant in her plans for employment in her home country. While it is conceded that the proposed courses has some relevance to food served at cafes, it appears to have little relevance to her previous employment both in Australia and in Malaysia.
With regards to the remuneration she can expect to earn from using the qualification from the proposed course, the applicant asserted that she would be earning RM 7,000 per month but without a business plan (which she acknowledged she does not have at the hearing) this cannot be anything but a figure plucked from the applicant’s head without any reasoning of how this figure was arrived at. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the proposed course will have much bearing on the applicant’s remuneration in her home country or a third country.
As to her potential circumstances in Australia, the Tribunal notes that she has no family in Australia. She has only had the one job, that was for two years, as a food and beverage attendant at a lounge bar at the Sydney Airport. There is no evidence that she is involved in any community groups or organisations in Australia. Therefore, it would appear she has little ties to Australia that would represent an incentive to remain her.
However, she has now been living in Australia for over four and a half years and during that time has completed only two courses, one of which was of a similar nature to her Bachelor of Business albeit at a Certificate III level. The applicant’s interest in studying patisserie seems to have come on suddenly and from left of field. Even as at March 2019 when she applied for this visa, studying patisserie was not mentioned, nor was running a café. The applicant stated that she wanted to study the leadership and management course because she would be “one step closer to achieving my dream of working in management level in a large company in my country”. It seems extraordinary that having completed the course that would bring her “one step closer” to her dream of working in management in a large company after years and years of studying business, that this dream suddenly disappeared and instead she would want to study pastry and run a café.
Another aspect that troubles the Tribunal is the applicant’s claim that there are limited opportunities for foreigners with limited connections here in Australia and that because of this, it would be hard for her to set up and run a business here. The Tribunal does not accept this assertion. The Australian hospitality is littered with examples of migrants with little to no qualifications or connections starting their own restaurants and cafes.
Taking these matters into consideration, the Tribunal considers that there is a strong indication based on the lack of value that the proposed course has to her future and her unsatisfactory explanation for the change in her career plans, that the applicant is using the student visa to maintain ongoing residence in Australia and that in doing so, she is attempting to circumvent the intentions of the migration program.
Lastly, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s immigration history. There is no evidence that the applicant has not complied with the conditions of her Australian visas, or that she has ever been refused a visa or had a visa cancelled by another country. She does not have any other Australian visa application pending a decision.
However, the applicant has been residing in Australia now for 1758 days and during that time has spent only around 48 days in her home country. She has spent the same amount of time travelling to other countries on holidays including South Korea (March 2017 for 12 days), Singapore (March 2018 for 3 days), Hong Kong (April 2018 for 5 days), Taiwan (April 2018 for 6 days and in December 2019 for 16 days) and China (December 2019 for 6 days), using Australia as her home base.
Despite possessing a Bachelor degree from her home country, the applicant has spent her time in Australia studying short and inexpensive vocational courses. The proposed course is yet another of those courses. The only difference is that it is in an entirely different area of study. Despite working in the hospitality industry for two years and experiencing the Australian café culture for the last four and a half years, her interest in studying food preparation is only a recent decision, over a year after the delegate’s decision (which was based on her enrolment in the leadership and management course).
Taking these matters into consideration, the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant’s immigration history suggests she is using the student visa to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.
There were no other relevant matters raised for consideration by the applicant.
On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily and therefore the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).

Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student as required by cl.500.212.
Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
Elizabeth Tueno
Member

Attachment – Direction No.69
DIRECTION NUMBER 69 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS
(Section 499)
I, PETER DUTTON, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Dated: 18 April 2016
Peter Dutton

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
Note: Section 499(1) of the Act empowers the Minister to give a written direction to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions; or the exercise of those powers. Under section 499(2) of the Act, the direction must not be inconsistent with the Act or the Migration Regulations 1994. Under section 499(2A) of the Act, the person or body must comply with the Direction.
Part 1 of Direction No. 69 - Preliminary
Name of Direction
This Direction is Direction No. 69 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.
It may be cited as Direction No. 69.
Commencement
This Direction commences on 1 July 2016.
Interpretation
Act means the Migration Act 1958.
Genuine temporary entrant means a person who satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa or Student Guardian visa applications.
Genuine temporary entrant criterion refers to clause 500.212(a), 500.312(a) and 590.215(a) at Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Home country has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.
Regulations mean the Migration Regulations 1994.
Relative has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.
Spouse has the same meaning as the definition of the term in section 5F of the Act.
Student visa means a Subclass 500 (Student) visa
Student Guardian visa means a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
Application
This Direction applies to delegates performing functions or exercising powers under section 65 of the Act in relation to assessing an applicant’s temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications in Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa application.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for either a Student visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Student Guardian visa.
Preamble
The Australian Government operates a student visa programme that enables people who are not Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents to undertake study in Australia. A person who wants to undertake a course of study under the student visa programme must obtain a student visa before they can commence a course of study in Australia. A successful applicant must be both a genuine temporary entrant and a genuine student.
An applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances that support a genuine intention to temporarily enter and remain in Australia, notwithstanding the potential for this intention to change over time to an intention to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia for an extended period of time or permanently.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
a.the applicant’s circumstances; and
b.the applicant’s immigration history; and
c.if the applicant is a minor — the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
d.any other relevant matter.
This Direction provides guidance to decision makers on what factors require consideration when assessing the above paragraphs a to d, to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily.
Decision makers must take a reasonable and balanced approach between the need to make a timely decision on a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application and the need to identify those applicants who, at time of decision, do not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily
Part 2 of Direction No. 69 - Directions
Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion
1.Decision makers should not use the factors specified in this Direction as a checklist. The listed factors are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
2.Decision makers should assess whether, on balance, the genuine temporary entrant criterion is satisfied, by:
a.considering the applicant against all factors specified in this Direction; and
b.considering any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker).
3.Decision makers may request additional information and/or further evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that they are a genuine temporary entrant, where closer scrutiny of the applicant's circumstances is considered appropriate.
4.Circumstances where further scrutiny may be appropriate include but are not limited to:
a.information in statistical, intelligence and analysis reports on migration fraud and immigration compliance compiled by the department indicates the need for further scrutiny;
b.the applicant or a relative of the applicant has an immigration history of reasonable concern;
c.the applicant intends to study in a field unrelated to their previous studies or employment; and
d.apparent inconsistencies in information provided by the applicant in their Student visa application.
5.An application for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa should be refused if, after weighing up the applicant’s circumstances, immigration history and any other relevant matter, the decision maker is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia.
The applicant’s circumstances
6.Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.
7.For primary applicants of Subclass 500 Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.
8.Weight should be placed on an applicant’s circumstances that indicate that the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is intended primarily for maintaining residence in Australia.
The applicant’s circumstances in their home country
9.When considering the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a.whether the applicant has reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in their home country or region if a similar course is already available there. Decision makers should allow for any reasonable motives established by the applicant;
b.the extent of the applicant’s personal ties to their home country (for example family, community and employment) and whether those circumstances would serve as a significant incentive to return to their home country;
c.economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country. These circumstances may include consideration of the applicant’s circumstances relative to the home country and to Australia;
d.military service commitments that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country; and
e.political and civil unrest in the applicant’s home country. This includes situations of a nature that may induce the applicant to apply for a Student visa or Student Guardian visa as means of obtaining entry to Australia for the purpose of remaining indefinitely. Decision makers should be aware of the changing circumstances in the applicant’s home country and the influence these may have on an applicant’s motivations for applying for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa.
10.Decision makers may have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country.
The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia
11.In considering the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a.The applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. This may include family and community ties;
b.evidence that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme;
c.whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence;
dwhether the primary and secondary applicant(s) have entered into a relationship of concern for a successful Student visa outcome. Where a decision maker determines that an applicant and dependant have contrived their relationship for a successful Student visa outcomes, the decision maker may find that both applicants do not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion; and
e.the applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia and their intended course of study and the associated education provider; including previous study and qualifications, what is a realistic level of knowledge an applicant is expected to know and the level of research the applicant has undertaken into their proposed course of study and living arrangements.
Value of the course to the applicant’s future
12.Decision makers should have regard to the following factors when considering the value of the course to the applicant’s future:
a.whether the student is seeking to undertake a course that is consistent with their current level of education and whether the course will assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve employment prospects in their home country. Decision makers should allow for reasonable changes to career or study pathways; and
b.relevance of the course to the student’s past or proposed future employment either in their home country or a third country; and
c.remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in the home country or a third country, compared with Australia, using the qualifications to be gained from the proposed course of study.
The applicant's immigration history
13.An applicant’s immigration history refers both to their visa and travel history.
14.When considering the applicant’s immigration history, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a.Previous visa applications for Australia or other countries, including:
i.if the applicant previously applied for an Australian temporary or permanent visa, whether those visa applications are yet to be finally determined (within the meaning of subsection 5(9) of the Act), were granted, or grounds on which the application(s) were refused; and
ii.if the applicant has previously applied for visa(s) to other countries, whether the applicant was refused a visa and the circumstances that led to visa refusal.
b.Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:
i.if the applicant previously travelled to Australia, whether they complied with the conditions of their visa and left before their visa ceased, and if not, were there circumstances beyond their control;
ii.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;
iii.the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia and whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence, including whether the applicant has undertaken a series of short, inexpensive courses, or has been onshore for some time without successfully completing a qualification; and
iv.if the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia, whether they complied with the migration laws of that country and the circumstances around any non-compliance
If the applicant is a minor— the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant
15.If the primary or secondary applicant for a Subclass 500 Student visa is a minor, decision makers should have regard to the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant.
Any other relevant matters
16.Decision makers should also have regard to any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia. This includes information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

[2021] AATA 429

17 February 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction