Migration Law Case Analysis

This assignment analyzes a case concerning an appeal against the refusal of a student subclass 572 visa. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision was challenged based on alleged jurisdictional error, specifically its failure to consider relevant factors such as the applicant's depression diagnosis and changes in educational plans. The court ultimately found that the tribunal's limited consideration of these matters constituted a jurisdictional error.

Running head: MIGRATION LAWS
Migration Laws
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
MIGRATION LAWS
The case was related to an appeal against the decision of the administrative appeals Tribunal
with respect to taking into account appropriate consideration for deciding a visa application. In
this case the delegate of minister of immigration and border protection refuse to issue the
applicant a student subclass 572 visa. An appeal was made by the appellant stating that there was
an error made by the Tribunal in relation to exercising its powers of reviewing and primary
decision provided by the delegate of the Minister by not paying attention to the matter which had
to be mandatorily considered by them.
According to Section 499 of the migration Act 1958 it was the duty of the Tribunal to pay
attention in relation to specific matters which included the circumstances of the applicant along
with immigration history and other matters which are relevant. As a Tribunal ignored overlooked
search specific matter the Tribunal is deemed not to pay attention to them. There was a
certificate provided by a health practitioner in Australia that the applicant is suffering from
depression. The reason for the alteration in the educational course was provided by the applicant
were written statement. There was a failure on the part of the Tribunal to exercise the powers
provided to it in relation to the review of the primary decision given by the delegate of minister
as it failed to conduct a review of such decision or giving such decision in an unreasonable
manner.
It was provided by the Tribunal that it is not satisfied in relation to the evidence provided before
it that the applicant has genuine interest towards achieving a successful educational outcome
from the time he arrived in Australia. It was also provided by the Tribunal that it considered the
medical condition of the applicant that he was suffering from depression. It was further stated by
the Tribunal that the medical report from India are provided through and assessment conducted
by an Indian medical practitioner over telephone conversation. Therefore Limited weightage is

2
MIGRATION LAWS
given to the. The report from the Australian medical practitioner only stated symptoms of
depression and no further medical reports had been provided by the practitioner. Even when the
student was enrolled into higher studies there was no attempt made by him towards any class or
subject in level of study1.
The court in this case provided that jurisdictional error is committed by Administrative Tribunal
in circumstances where it is not able to take into consideration those matters which it is bound to
consider. The court found that the combination of the direction number 53 along with section
499 of the migration act signifies that the Tribunal must give regard to such consideration which
have been set out in the directions2. The weightage in relation to one or more factors is up on the
Tribunal to decide and may vary in different cases. An argument was provided by the applicant
that misapprehension of the evidence was done by the Tribunal in relation to the depression of
the applicant with respect to the reason of the force change and thus accounted to a jurisdictional
error by not considering relevant matters. Reference was made to the findings of the Tribunal by
the applicant which talked about considerable gas in the studies and enrolment of applicant
which stated that the Tribunal did not take into account the fact that the depression suffered by
the applicant was the cause of such gaps3.
Argument was made by the applicant that it should be inferred that this diagnosis was
overlooked by the Tribunal. Therefore the Great Depression of the applicant was not accepted by
the Tribunal with respect to the reason of the length of time he has stayed in Australia without
attaining educational achievements which created significant gap with respect to his studies4.
1 Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 67 at [8]
2 Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 67 at [9]
3 Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 67 at [10]
4 Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 67 at [12]

3
MIGRATION LAWS
It was provided by the court that the consideration of the tribunal had been limited in
relation to the course change by the applicant by stating that it was not content is believing that
the new course opted by the applicant had any relation to the previously conducted education of
the applicant. This is not the issue which is required by be given regards to by the tribunal as per
direction 53. The direction further allows changes in relation to reasonable changes in career
which was not considered or mentioned by the tribunal. The consideration of the material and
claims as provided by the applicant by the tribunal were not particular which depicted a failure to
consider the materials. Thus a jurisdictional error was committed by the tribunal5. The relevant
matter in relation to the diagnosis of depression was also ignored by the tribunal and as these
were important matter and were dealt with unreasonably the tribunals was deemed to make a
jurisdictional error by the court6.
5 Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 67 at [14]
6 Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 67 at [15]

4
MIGRATION LAWS
Bibliography
Singh v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 67