Sanjel v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1966

Sanjel v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1966

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge did not err in following Vidiyala, which was not plainly wrong, and the Tribunal was not required to consider cl 500.212(b) or (c) once it found cl 500.212(a) was not met. Leave to raise the new immigration-history ground was refused because the ground lacked merit: the Tribunal's reasons showed engagement with the appellant's immigration history and no other factor favoured granting leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review of a Migration Visa Decision / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['student Visa' 'genuine Temporary Entrant Criterion' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'mandatory Relevant Considerations' 'appellate Leave to Raise New Grounds']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['student Visa' 'genuine Temporary Entrant Criterion' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'mandatory Relevant Considerations' 'appellate Leave to Raise New Grounds']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Dismissal of an Application for Judicial Review of a Migration Visa Decision / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in following Vidiyala v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1973 on the cumulative operation of cl 500.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).' 'Whether the appellant should have leave to raise on appeal a new ground alleging that the Tribunal failed to consider his immigration history under cl 500.212(a)(ii).' 'Whether the Tribunal was required to consider cl 500.212(b) and (c) after finding that cl 500.212(a) was not satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the primary judge did not err in following Vidiyala, which was not plainly wrong, and the Tribunal was not required to consider cl 500.212(b) or (c) once it found cl 500.212(a) was not met. Leave to raise the new immigration-history ground was refused because the ground lacked merit: the Tribunal's reasons showed engagement with the appellant's immigration history and no other factor favoured granting leave.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The name of the first respondent be changed to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs.' 'The appeal is dismissed.' 'The appellant is to pay the first respondents costs.']