Visa Compliance - Cancellation and Review - myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theVisa Compliance, Cancellation and Review for Immigration. Answer: Singh v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 1901 (14 August 2017) In this case, the appellant held a student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 573 visa while he arrived in Australia and had undertaken an English Language Intensive Course for Overseas Students (ELICOS course). However, he had difficulties with the ELICOS course and was subjected to depression. The appellant had submitted a written statement before the Tribunal stating the reasons why he changed his study course to cooking as he always wanted to become a professional cook. Since the appellant came from India he believes there are several scopes for his future employment as a professional cook. The Federal Circuit Court contended that Tribunals decision did not include the material that the applicant had provided to the court through his statement regarding his reasons to change his study course to cookery from business management. An administrative tribunal is saifd to commit jurisdictional error when it fails to consider matters which is required to be considered by the court. Under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Direction No. 53, the tribunal is required to take into consideration those materials that are laid down in the Ministerial Direction No. 53 that is relevant to the decision[1]. The tribunal was held to have misconstrued the evidence that was produced before it by the appellant. It failed to have regard to the essential documents regarding his reasons for changing his study course and his reasons for depression. This amounted to a jurisdictional error on part of the Tribunal for failing to consider the relevant material. The Tribunal held that the depression of te appellant was a result of the considerable gaps that was present in the enrolment and studies of the applicant. The Tribunal further held that as per the subsequent analysis of the claims made by the Appellant it is because of the gaps in the studies and enrolment that caused his depression. The tribunal had failed to consider the actual diagnosis that the appellant had referred to which is evident that the appellant was feeling depressed as he wished to change his study course from management to cookery and he misses his parents who resides in India and he is away from home. The appellant visited Dr Tahayvalappil-Kyparath and the diagnosis was conducted by the same doctor. The court failed to consider the diagnosis report while making its decision. The Tribunal failed to notice the diagnosis as a result of which the claim made by the applicant regarding his reason for depression was rejected by the Tribunal. The tribunal rejected the fact that the appellant was suffering from depression as he was away from home for a significant time without any educational achievements and a considerable gap in his study have resulted in his mood swings[2]. The tribunal had taken a brief and insignificant part of the oral evidence adduced by the applicant with respect to his enrolment in the Hospitality course which was completely irrelevant to the any of the matters that were mentioned in students written statement. The Tribunal had overlooked the reasons and considered the depression to be the result of the gaps in the appellants enrolment. The Tribunal restricted its consideration by stating that there is no relevancy between the applicantss previously completed education and his recourse to management studies. The Tribunal has not only failed to have regard to the essential matters that were to be taken in to consideration as per Direction No. 53 but also failed to mention that it is permitted to make reasonable changes to study or career pathways which was also stipulated under Direction No. 53[3]. The decision made by the Tribunal with respect to the consideration of the Applicants claim and materials , it is evident that it lacked essential distinctiveness which establishes that the Tribunal had failed to have regard to the essential material that was required to be considered. The ignorance of relevant matters such as the diagnosis of depression and the evidence in the form of written statement which includes reasons of the applicant to change his study course, is a clear evidence of the fact that the Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction for which it was authorized. Reference List The Migration Act, 1994 (Cth). Singh v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 1901 (14 August 2017)