Federal Court of Australia

Maan v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 64

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The appeal be dismissed.

2.    The appellant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

Introduction

1    In February 2017 the appellant applied for a Subclass 485 visa using an online form. Subclass 485 contains two “streams” and an applicant was required to nominate one or the other. The appellant (who did not have the assistance of a migration agent at the time) nominated the “Graduate Work Stream”. He listed his “nominated occupation” as “Analyst Programmer”. However, he also indicated (in answer to a question on the form) that he had not applied to a relevant assessing authority for a skills assessment. This meant that he could not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a visa in Graduate Work Stream. The visa was refused by a delegate of the first respondent (the Minister) on 6 April 2017.

2    On review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal), the appellant said that he had intended to apply for a visa in the other stream within Subclass 485—the “Post-Study Work Stream”—but had made a mistake. The Tribunal considered whether it was possible for the appellant to change streams so that it could grant him a visa in the Post-Study Work Stream if he met the criteria applicable to that stream. It concluded that it could not do so, and therefore affirmed the delegate’s decision on 8 May 2018.

3    The appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (the Circuit Court). The application was heard on 19 October 2023 and dismissed on 26 October 2023. The Circuit Court was bound to follow the decision in Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 774 (Rangiah J) (Singh), which stood directly in the appellant’s way.

4    The short summary of the factual background set out above is sufficient to indicate that this appeal raises the same question of law as Obinwa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 63 (Obinwa). Both appeals were listed before us on 7 May 2024.

5    The appellant appeared for himself and, although he filed written submissions, was not in a position to add anything on the legal issues. He adopted the submissions made by counsel for the appellant in Obinwa as to these issues.

6    For the reasons given in Obinwa, this appeal must also be dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:    28 May 2024