Uzoh v Minister for Immigration - [2020] FCCA 2637

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

UZOH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2020] FCCA 2637

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Student visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where the applicant was not enrolled – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.476

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), cls.500.211, 500.214 of sch.2

Cases cited:

Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600

Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Doan v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1172
Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611
SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294
SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80

Applicant:

PAUL NWAKAIRE UZOH

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number:

PEG 117 of 2020

Judgment of:

Judge Kendall

Hearing date:

18 September 2020

Date of Last Submission:

18 September 2020

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

22 September 2020

REPRESENTATION

Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms J Tran

Second Respondent:

Submitting appearance, save as to costs

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The application be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 117 of 2020

PAUL NWAKAIRE UZOH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. He arrived in Australia on a student visa in early 2016 (Court Book (“CB”) 158).
On 20 February 2018, the applicant applied for a Student (Temporary) (class TU) Student (subclass 500) visa (the “visa”) (CB 1-31). The applicant was enrolled in a Masters of Project Management.
On 27 March 2018, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the applicant the visa (CB 36-42). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met cl.500.214 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the “Regulations”). That is, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the financial capacity requirements for the visa.
On 5 April 2018, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) for review of the delegate’s decision (CB 48-50). A number of supporting documents were provided (CB 51-113).
The applicant completed his Masters Course in July 2018 (CB 118).
On 6 December 2019, the applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal (CB 124-126). The invitation indicated that the applicant should provide evidence of a confirmation of enrolment. The applicant provided a number of additional documents, including a PRISMS record (CB 131-159).
The applicant attended a hearing on 29 January 2020 (CB 160-162). Following the hearing, the applicant provided a number of financial documents to the Tribunal (CB 165-179). No confirmation of enrolment was provided.
On 2 April 2020, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Uzoh v Minister for Immigration and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] FCCA 2637
Decision Date: 22 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Uzoh, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning his student visa. The AAT had affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant Mr Uzoh a student visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the AAT had committed a jurisdictional error in its determination.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had made a jurisdictional error by failing to consider relevant evidence or by making a finding that was not supported by evidence, specifically in relation to the applicant's enrolment status. The applicant contended that the AAT's finding that he was not enrolled in a course of study was erroneous and constituted a jurisdictional error.

Judge Kendall found that the AAT had not made a jurisdictional error. The Court noted that the AAT had considered the evidence before it, including the applicant's submission that he was enrolled in a course. However, the AAT was not satisfied that the applicant had discharged his onus to prove he was enrolled. The Court held that the AAT's finding was open to it on the evidence presented and did not involve an error of law. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders