Singh v Minister for Home Affairs
[2020] FCA 203
At a glance
Source factsCourt
Federal Court of Australia
Decision date
2020-02-27
Before
Derrington J
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (6 paragraphs)
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The appellant is to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Introduction 1 This is an appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCC) of 5 September 2019, which dismissed an application for review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal had, on 19 December 2018, affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection made on 16 August 2017, to refuse the appellant a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) Visa (the skilled visa).
Background 2 The appellant is a citizen of India, although he has apparently resided in Australia since 18 June 2009, well before applying for the skilled visa which has led to these proceedings. The material shows that he commenced a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery at the Australian Institute of Technology and Management Pty Ltd on 11 August 2014. That was completed on 8 February 2016. 3 He commenced a further course on 3 October 2016, being an Advanced Diploma of Marketing with the New England Institute of Technology Pty Ltd. That diploma course was completed on 30 April 2017. 4 On 29 June 2017, the appellant applied for the skilled visa and declared his nominated skilled occupation as that of "chef". 5 On 16 August 2017, the Department advised the appellant by letter that his application for the skilled visa had been refused on the basis that he did not meet the requirements of reg 485.222 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). The basis of the non-compliance was that the qualification relied upon by him, being the Advanced Diploma in Marketing, was regarded as having no close connection to his nominated skilled occupation as chef. 6 On 30 August 2017, the appellant sought review of the delegate's decision from the Tribunal. 7 A hearing before the Tribunal occurred on 30 November 2018 at which the appellant attended and in which he had the assistance of a representative. 8 On 20 December 2018, the Tribunal wrote to the appellant advising him that it had affirmed the decision under review. In particular, it had concluded that the appellant's Advanced Diploma in Marketing was not "closely related" to his occupation as a chef. 9 It held at [28] and [29]: 28. The above are a more generalised set of tasks some of which directly refer to the occupation of chef. However it is not so broad as to closely relate the unit courses, as outlined by the applicant, with his Advanced Diploma of Marketing. At best, the Advanced Diploma of Marketing is complimentary but not closely related to the occupation of chef. 29. As an observation, the 'marketing' qualification is generic in nature; it applies to almost all qualifications of a more specific kind. For instance, marketing would assist professions from 'Architects' to 'Quantity Surveyors' as would a diploma of leadership and management and similar styled diplomas. 10 On 17 January 2019, the appellant applied to the FCC seeking review of the Tribunal's decision. Central to that application was the assertion that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly narrow approach to assessing whether the marketing qualification was closely related to the occupation of chef. 11 On 5 September 2019, the FCC handed down its decision dismissing the application for review. The basis of that decision was that no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal had been demonstrated. 12 An appeal was lodged to this Court on 18 September 2019. The grounds of the appeal are: 1. The Federal Judge failed to consider that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction because its "reasonable satisfaction" was not arrived in accordance with the provisions of the Migration Act. 2. The learned judge has dismissed the case without considering the legal and factual errors contained in the decision of the AAT. 13 The appellant appeared in this Court representing himself with the assistance of an interpreter. Although directions were made for the filing of outlines of submissions, he neglected to do so. He was unable to particularise the grounds of appeal which appeared in the notice of appeal. His main concern was that he believed that his Diploma of Marketing would have been of assistance to him in opening a restaurant and that ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. 14 The Minister, in his written submissions, submitted that the appellant's grounds of appeal lacked particularity, which was argued to be a basis in itself for dismissal: see, for example, WZAVW v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 760 at [35]. The Minister further submitted that, in any event, the FCC properly and fully considered the grounds as raised by the appellant, as well as whether the appellant satisfied the relevant criteria more broadly.