Majumder v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1372

Majumder v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1372

The appeal failed because cl 573.235 required compliance with each applicable condition of the appellant's last substantive visa, condition 8202(3)(a) was engaged by the education provider's certification that the appellant had not achieved satisfactory course progress, and that condition was not capable of substantial compliance. The construction applied by the delegate, the Tribunal and the primary judge was correct, and the notice of appeal did not identify any error by the primary judge or the Tribunal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['student Visa Refusal' 'substantial Compliance With Visa Conditions' 'condition 8202(3)' 'satisfactory Course Progress' 'judicial Review Appeal']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['student Visa Refusal' 'substantial Compliance With Visa Conditions' 'condition 8202(3)' 'satisfactory Course Progress' 'judicial Review Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal / Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether cl 573.235 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) required substantial compliance with condition 8202(3)(a) of Sch 8 where the appellant's education provider had certified that he had not achieved satisfactory course progress." 'Whether condition 8202(3)(a) is amenable to substantial compliance for the purposes of cl 573.235.' "Whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the application for review of the Tribunal's decision affirming refusal of the Student (Class TU) Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because cl 573.235 required compliance with each applicable condition of the appellant's last substantive visa, condition 8202(3)(a) was engaged by the education provider's certification that the appellant had not achieved satisfactory course progress, and that condition was not capable of substantial compliance. The construction applied by the delegate, the Tribunal and the primary judge was correct, and the notice of appeal did not identify any error by the primary judge or the Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondents' costs."]