Analysis of Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) Case

This case study analyzes Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 1901, focusing on jurisdictional errors in the context of a student visa refusal. The case revolves around a registered migration agent's challenge to an Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision that affirmed the visa refusal. The central issue is whether the tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider crucial evidence, including medical documentation of the applicant's depression and the reasons for changing his course of study. The court found that the tribunal overlooked essential factors, such as the certified medical diagnosis and the applicant's written statement, leading to a jurisdictional error. The case highlights the importance of carefully reviewing tribunal decisions to identify jurisdictional errors and ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered. The court's decision underscores the need for a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented by the applicant to determine whether the tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error. This case serves as an example for identifying and determining jurisdictional errors, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant factors when making decisions.

Running Head: Law 1
Law

Law 2
Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 1901 (14 August 2017).
The main issue in this case for applicant, registered migration agent, and migration lawyer is
whether there was any way to rescue the person with the applicable situation, and any option to
get decision of AAT for the purpose of overturning the affirmation of student visa refusal and
sent the case back to the tribunal for reconsider their decision.
Decision of this case stated the steps and procedure which can be used to help an applicant in this
situation. This case provided the most important lesson that it was not necessary to send the
student back after his visa refusal, but there was need to examine and review the decision made
by tribunal with care, and also evaluate the decision of the tribunal on the ground whether
decision of the tribunal is affected by any jurisdictional error or not. This case can be considered
as an example for the purpose of identifying and determine jurisdictional error.
In this case, application was submitted by the applicant to the migration department, and this
application was accompanied with the certified document from the doctor which state that
applicant was suffering from depression, low mood, poor appetite and loss of sleep. Written
statement was also submitted by applicant to the department and this statement defines the
reasons why applicant changes his course of study. This written statement also included that
applicant wants to professionally as a cook, and he came from the place where there were
number of hotels which provide the opportunity for future employment as cook.
In other words, jurisdictional error was committed by tribunal when tribunal fails to consider the
important matters which must be considered by the tribunal. Section 499 of the migration Act
1958 and direction no. 53 imposed obligation on tribunal to consider the consideration stated in

Law 3
Ministerial Direction no. 53 because it was important for taking the decision (Migration Act,
1958).
Applicant further argued that that tribunal fails to consider the evidences related to depression
and changing his course presented by student before the tribunal which also results in
jurisdictional error. Applicant also questioned the findings of tribunal related to the considerable
gaps in the study and enrolment and studies and also the claim related to depression under which
tribunal omit the consideration of actual diagnosis.
Applicant also stated that tribunal overlooked the diagnosis present by the applicant because of
which tribunal reject the claim made by applicant for depression as a reason to justify the gap
occurred between length of time student remain in Australia and education achievements.
Applicant also highlight the error committed by tribunal by referring only brief part of oral
evidences stated by student related to reasons for enrolling the course of Diploma of Hospitality.
Tribunal also fail to consider the evidences and reasons stated in written statement provided by
student for the purpose of deciding his case.
In this case, Judge Hartnett stated that analysis done by tribunal to the student claim related to
issue of depression does not provide any reference of the certified medical document which was
submitted by applicant to the migration department in the first instance and this certified
document also provide formal diagnosis that the applicant was suffering from depression.
Court also stated, decision of the tribunal not even satisfied the fact that documents submitted by
the applicant in the first instance was even considered by the tribunal such as written statement
which highlight the reasons why student change his course from business management to

Law 4
cookery. Therefore, Court held that tribunal failed to determine the relevant factors which result
in jurisdictional error on the part of the tribunal.
This case mainly highlights the requirement to evaluation and review of the decision of the
tribunal with care for the purpose of determining whether decision made by tribunal is affected
with jurisdictional error or not and also for determining whether evidences presented by the
applicant was considered by the Tribunal or not for deciding the case.
It might be possible that rights of the applicant and decision of the case was affected by the
consideration of the tribunal and jurisdiction error committed by tribunal by not considering the
evidences presented by applicant. Review of tribunal decision provides the opportunity to the
applicant to rescue their visa application for the purpose of preserving their ability to study,
work, and remain I Australia for other purpose (Federal Court of Australia, 2017).

Law 5
References:
Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 1901 (14 August 2017).
Migration Act 1958- section 44.
Federal Court of Australia, (2017). Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA
1901.