FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lam v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1866
MIGRATION – visa – student visa – requirement that applicant had complied with conditions in previous visa – substantial compliance – condition in previous visa that applicant satisfy course requirements – poor academic progress in various courses – whether factors discussed in previous authorities constituted a “test” – whether tribunal applied a qualitative test – whether error of law in finding of “flouting” condition when tribunal equated flouting with knowing breach – whether tribunal disregarded evidence of psychologists – whether Minister obliged to provide applicant with transcript of tribunal proceedings
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 41(3), 476
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 2.05, Sch 2 subclass 560, Sch 8 item 8202
Modi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 529 referred to
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Modi [2001] FCA 1656 followed
Baidakova v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (Federal Court of Australia, Katz J, 12 November 1998, unreported) referred to
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 (2001) 180 ALR 1 referred to
Kim v Witton (1995) 59 FCR 258 referred to
Shrestha v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1578 followed
Procedures Advice Manual 3
YEUNG LAP LAM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
V 166 of 2001
GRAY J
20 DECEMBER 2001
MELBOURNE
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
V 166 of 2001 |
|
BETWEEN: |
YEUNG LAP LAM APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
DATE OF ORDER: |
|
|
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for judicial review be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
|
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA |
|
|
V 166 of 2001 |
|
BETWEEN: |
APPLICANT
|
|
AND: |
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
|
|
JUDGE: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
PLACE: |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The nature of the proceeding
1 This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 8 February 2001. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister”), to refuse to grant to the applicant a student (temporary) (class TU) visa, subclass 560. The delegate’s decision was made on 27 April 2000. The application to this Court is made pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Migration Act”). Although this judgment is given after the date on which substantial amendments to s 476 came into operation, the case must be dealt with according to the provisions of s 476 as they stood before those amendments.
2 When I heard the matter, the applicant appeared in person. He was assisted, however, by a registered migration agent, Ms Clare Lo. Written contentions filed on behalf of the applicant were prepared by the applicant and Ms Lo, with the assistance of a legally qualified person, who is a tutor of Ms Lo in a course of studies at RMIT University. The written contentions and the oral submissions made by Ms Lo at the hearing were of high quality and of great assistance to the Court. Similarly, written contentions filed on behalf of the Minister, and oral submissions made by counsel for the Minister provided assistance to the Court of a very high standard.
3 In the course of argument, reference was made to the judgment of Heerey J in Modi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 529. An examination of Heerey J’s reasons for judgment in that case discloses that his Honour was dealing with a decision of the Tribunal on a case with facts quite similar to the present case. In respect of one issue in Modi, the Tribunal had expressed its reasons in terms very similar to the reasons of the Tribunal on the same point in the present case. If I had followed Heerey J’s judgment in Modi, it would have been clear that the applicant in the present case would have been successful. Counsel for the Minister informed me that the Minister had appealed from the judgment in Modi and that the appeal was due to be heard at the sittings of the Full Court in November 2001. It seemed to me that, in order to avoid the expense and trouble of an additional appeal, the proper course was to await the judgment of the Full Court in Modi before delivering judgment in the present case. The Full Court dealt with the appeal in Modi on 22 November 2001 and delivered judgment on the same day. See Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Modi [2001] FCA 1656. I refer in greater detail to the reasons for judgment of both Heerey J and the Full Court in that case later in these reasons for judgment.
The facts
4 The following summary of the facts is taken from the reasons for decision of the Tribunal. The applicant is a citizen of the Peoples’ Republic of China, who comes from Hong Kong. He was born on 13 November 1976. He arrived in Australia on 9 July 1994 to complete his secondary education at Taylors College. He completed Year 10 in 1994 and Year 11 in 1995. In 1996 he was successful in the La Trobe University Foundation Studies Program.
5 On 7 April 1997, the applicant was granted a visa of the kind described in subclass 560 in Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations, which relates to student visas. That visa was valid until 15 March 2000. It contained a condition, described as condition 8202. This was a reference to item 8202 in Sch 8 to the Migration Regulations. Schedule 8 contains conditions which, pursuant to reg 2.05, are prescribed for the purpose of s 41(3) of the Migration Act. Section 41(3) provides that the Minister may specify that a visa is subject to such conditions as are permitted by the Migration Regulations for the purposes of s 41(3). Reg 2.05(1) provides that the conditions to which a visa is subject are those set out, or referred to, in the part of Sch 2 that relates to visas in the subclass in which the visa is included. Item 560.611(1)(a)(i) then provided that condition 8202 applies in all cases to subclass 560 visas. At the time, condition 8202 was in the following terms:
“The holder must satisfy course requirements”.
6 In 1997, the applicant began studying for a Bachelor of Economics at La Trobe University. He failed all eight subjects undertaken. On 1 February 1998, he commenced an Associate Diploma of Business course at Holmesglen Institute of TAFE. He was withdrawn from the course after the first semester because fees were not received for the second semester. On 28 July 1998, he transferred to a Bachelor of Business course at La Trobe University. He obtained a distinction in one subject but failed the other three that he undertook. On 12 March 1999, La Trobe University refused to allow him to re-enrol for that year.
7 The applicant then enrolled in a Diploma of Commerce course at the Melbourne Institute of Business and Technology. In the first semester he passed one subject out of four undertaken. In the second semester, he gained a credit in one subject and passed the other three subjects he undertook. In the third semester (which lasted from 25 October 1999 to 11 February 2000), he passed one subject and failed another two. On 22 February 2000, the applicant commenced a Bachelor of Business course at Swinburne University of Technology. He was granted a number of exemptions as a result of subjects he had studied at the Melbourne Institute of Business and Technology. The course was due to be completed in July 2002.
8 On 9 March 2000, the applicant applied for a further subclass 560 visa. The decision of the delegate of the Minister on 27 April 2000 to refuse to grant the visa was based on the ground that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had complied with the conditions of his previous visa. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision refusing to grant a visa.
9 The applicant provided to the Tribunal evidence from two psychologists to the effect that he had suffered from depression in 1997 and 1998. There was also evidence from the applicant himself, his sister, a university friend and a family friend. The applicant had great difficulty adjusting to university life. He could not cope with an unsupervised classroom environment with many other students, could not comprehend lectures and could not complete written assignments. He felt pressure from the expectation of his parents that he would succeed. He became depressed, had difficulty sleeping, and suffered fear and anxiety about attending lectures. His evidence suggested that, by 25 January 2001, when the Tribunal conducted its hearing, his condition had improved. He gave evidence that he attended all classes in 2000, found the motivation and confidence to apply himself to his studies and began to enjoy his course.
The Tribunal’s reasons
10 The Tribunal addressed itself to the criterion in item 560.213 in Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations. This provides that a criterion to be satisfied at the time of an application for a subclass 560 visa is:
“If the application is made in Australia, the applicant has complied substantially with the conditions to which the visa (if any) held, or last held, by the applicant is, or was, subject.”
The Tribunal addressed itself to whether the applicant had complied substantially with condition 8202 as it then stood.
11 The Tribunal cited Baidakova v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (Federal Court of Australia, Katz J, 12 November 1998, unreported) and said:
“Katz J referred to the matters to be taken into account when deciding whether an applicant has complied substantially with a visa condition. These include the nature and significance of the breach, whether or not the applicant deliberately flouted the condition and, if the applicant failed to appreciate the breach of condition, what if anything had contributed to that failure, including whether the Department had misled the applicant.”
12 The Tribunal then referred to the Procedures Advice Manual 3 (“PAM3”), a resource prepared to assist decision-makers under the Migration Act. It referred to a specific passage in PAM3, par 12.3.5, which describes factors that may be considered when determining whether or not there has been substantial compliance with condition 8202. The Tribunal set out the following passage from PAM3:
·
|
· whether the circumstances were reasonably beyond the student’s control (e.g. absence or failure due to illness or non-elective surgery);
· whether the student is able to provide evidence in support of these circumstances (e.g. medical certificates); and
· whether the student has decided to leave Australia or has enrolled with another education provider or for another course and would meet legislative requirements to be granted a 560 visa”.
13 The Tribunal then referred to the purpose for which the applicant’s visa had been granted, namely satisfying course requirements, and summarised the applicant’s academic performance. It then said:
“The visa applicant was aware that his performance was below the required standard. The breach might therefore reasonably be interpreted as flouting the conditions for which the visa was granted. There is no claim or evidence before the Tribunal that the Department misled the visa applicant at any time. In all the circumstances the Tribunal finds that the breach of condition 8202 was significant and that the visa applicant appreciated the breach.”
14 The Tribunal then discussed the applicant’s problems with insomnia, anxiety, depression and unfamiliarity with a new environment. After referring to the diagnosis of the two psychologists, the Tribunal continued:
“There is no documentation or medical evidence before March 2000 that the visa applicant was suffering from depression or other conditions that required ongoing medical treatment during the relevant period. As agreed by the visa applicant at the hearing, there is no evidence of therapy or other counselling sought by him relating to his psychological or physical state during this period, and the visa applicant admitted that he did not seek special consideration, leave of absence or medical or psychological advice. He did not notify any of the institutions of the problems that affected his ability to complete course requirements.
The Tribunal takes into account the evidence given at the hearing by the visa applicant that he is not a person to take the initiative in difficult situations such as his poor academic performance, and that he felt anxiety concerning his lack of comprehension of the lectures and his parents’ reaction to his performance. The Tribunal also notes that the visa applicant made some improvement when he transferred to MIBT in 1999. The Tribunal acknowledges that Swinburne accepted the visa applicant in 2000 and that he appears to have made significant gains in his physical and psychological state, and that his performance has improved, although studies at Swinburne are outside the relevant visa period.”
15 After citing the dictionary definition of the word “substantial”, the Tribunal said:
“Taking all relevant matters into account, applying the test in Baidakova and the definition of substantial, the Tribunal finds that by failing all subjects in 1997 and first semester 1998, passing 1 subject out of 4 in second semester 1998, passing 6 subjects out of 11 in 1999 the visa applicant has not achieved the essence of condition 8202 of his visa during the relevant period. Consequently the Tribunal finds that the visa applicant has not complied substantially with condition 8202 and has not satisfied the conditions of his previous visa.”
16 The Tribunal therefore concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in item 560.213 and decided to refuse the grant of a student (temporary) (class TU) visa, subclass 560 to the applicant. It is this decision which is the subject of the present application for judicial review.
The applicant’s case
17 The grounds specified in the application, which was filed on 5 March 2001, are as follows:
“1. That the decision involved an error of law.
Particulars
The Tribunal
wrongly interpreted the meaning of condition 8202
afforded to the Applicant’s
subclass 560 visa namely that the
holder must satisfy course
requirements.
·
The Tribunal treated the Applicant’s failure in
a number of
the subjects in the courses he had undertaken and his awareness
that his performance was below the required standard as of
itself a breach of condition 8202.
Properly interpreted this
was only a breach of condition 8202 if the Applicant’s failure
to satisfy the condition was intentional or negligent.
·
The Tribunal has incorrectly interpreted and
applied the law
by finding failure of subjects as a ‘significant breach’ and
the Applicant’s awareness of below standard performance as
‘flouting the conditions’. In doing so
the Tribunal incorrectly
interpreted and applied the decision in Baidakova v Minister
for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1436.
The Tribunal has incorrectly
interpreted and applied the law
concerning the policy guidelines in the Procedures Advice Manual 3
(PAM 3) relating to the Applicant’s depressive illness.
·
The Tribunal stated there was no documentation
or medical
evidence before March 2000 that the visa applicant was
suffering from depression or other conditions that required
ongoing medical treatment during the relevant period. The
Tribunal failed to take into account the Applicant’s
uncontradicted evidence that he had obtained sedatives from
a doctor on several occasions during the relevant period to
assist with his sleeping problems. The
Tribunal failed to take
into account the uncontested medical reports of psychologists
Bruce and Bainbridge of the Applicant’s depression during the
relevant period.
·
The Tribunal failed to consider that a
depressive illness during
the relevant period may not be diagnosed until after the said
period.
2. That there was no evidence or other
material to justify the making of
the decision.
Particulars
The Tribunal made its decision on a
finding that the Applicant had
failed to comply with the said condition 8202 of the Applicant’s
visa. On a proper interpretation of the
said condition there was no
evidence of [sic] or other material that
the Applicant had failed to comply with the said condition.”
18 On 8 May 2001, the applicant filed written contentions, substantially based on these grounds. The Minister’s written contentions were filed on 8 June 2001. On the day before the hearing of the application, the applicant filed further written contentions, taking account of what was said by the High Court of Australia in Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 (2001) 180 ALR 1. These contentions were structured on the basis that it was necessary for the Tribunal to deal with a list of factors identified in Kim v Witton (1995) 59 FCR 258 and Baidakova. Before discussing in detail the points argued on behalf of the applicant, it is convenient to determine the proposition or propositions of law for which those cases stand as authority.
Kim v Witton and Baidakova
19 In Shrestha v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1578 at [13] – [14], I summarised Kim v Witton and Baidakova in the following terms:
“Kim v Witton (1995) 59 FCR 258 was a case in which the Court dealt with an application for judicial review of an IRT decision upholding the cancellation of a visa for breach of a condition that the visa holder not work in Australia. One of the issues was whether it was appropriate for the Tribunal to apply the test of substantial compliance in determining whether there had been a breach of the condition warranting cancellation of the visa. In the course of determining that substantial compliance was sufficient, Sackville J said at 271:
‘In my opinion, in determining whether an applicant has complied substantially with a condition imposing a prohibition, the Tribunal should consider the relevant circumstances of the case. Without being exhaustive, these include:
· the nature of the breach of condition;
· the significance of the breach, especially by reference to the purposes for which the visa or entry permit was granted;
· whether or not the applicant deliberately flouted the condition; and
· if the applicant failed to appreciate that he or she was in breach of the condition, what, if anything, contributed to that failure and, in particular, whether the Department misled the applicant.
In general, it is a matter for the Tribunal to assess the weight to be accorded to these factors, having regard to the circumstances of the case.’
Baidakova v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (Federal Court of Australia, Katz J, 12 November 1998, unreported) was a different case. It was a case in which the Court was exercising its function of judicial review with respect to a decision to refuse to grant a visa. At the time of her application for that visa, the visa applicant held a temporary visa subject to a condition that she satisfy the requirements of the course which she had undertaken. Again, the issue of substantial compliance arose. Katz J quoted from the judgment of Sackville J in Kim v Witton, including the passage I have set out above. This explains the reference the Tribunal made in its reasons for decision in the present case to Baidakova.”
20 After referring to the circumstances of Shrestha and to High Court authority, including Yusuf, I continued at [17]:
“The argument advanced by counsel for the applicant in the present case sought to elevate the considerations listed by Sackville J in Kim v Witton to the status of relevant considerations in every case. I do not think that they bear that character. They were merely matters that, as a matter of logic, would have been relevant in the circumstances of the case with which his Honour was dealing. No doubt in many cases, those considerations, or similar ones, will be relevant, as a matter of logic, to a determination whether there has been substantial compliance with a condition in a visa. This does not mean that, in every case, there is an obligation on the decision-maker to take into account every one of those factors. The circumstances of the case will determine what the statutory duty of the decision-maker is. Baidakova is an illustration of this proposition. Although Katz J set out what Sackville J has said, his Honour does not appear to have attempted to state the list of matters in Sackville J’s judgment in the form of a ‘test’. Indeed, prior to quoting a passage from the judgment of Sackville J, Katz J said:
‘In the course of dismissing the applicant’s application for review of the Tribunal’s decision, Sackville J discussed (at 270-72) the requirement of substantial compliance as it applied in the context of the case before him.’
The emphasis in the quote is mine. The remark illustrates the view that Katz J took of what Sackville J had said. Indeed, in Baidakova itself, the issue of substantial compliance turned upon whether the measurement of compliance was quantitative (the percentage of classes attended) or qualitative. His Honour did not assess the performance of the IRT against the list of matters referred to in Sackville J’s judgment as though those matters constituted a ‘test’.”
21 Kim v Witton and Baidakova were also central to the reasoning of Heerey J in Modi. On appeal in Modi at [17], the Full Court said:
“Sackville J was careful to say that the list of considerations and circumstances was not intended to be exhaustive and that, in general, it was a matter for the Tribunal to assess the weight to be accorded to such factors, having regard to the circumstances of the case. He added (at 271):
‘The mere fact that an applicant did not appreciate that his or her conduct breached a condition does not necessarily establish that he or she had complied substantially with that condition.’”
22 At [23], the Full Court said:
“In our view, the correct approach to the issues in this case is that taken by Gray J in Shrestha at [17] where his Honour pointed out that the considerations listed by Sackville J in Kim v Witton were not to be elevated to the status of relevant considerations in every case. His Honour observed that the circumstances of the case will determine what the statutory duty of the decision-maker involves in those circumstances and that there is no rigid test.”
23 It is therefore necessary to realise that the list of relevant circumstances to be considered, set out by Sackville J in Kim v Witton and referred to by Katz J in Baidakova, is by no means a compulsory checklist in every case in which there is an issue of substantial compliance with a visa condition. The circumstances of each case will determine what factors the decision-maker takes into account. The weight to be given to those circumstances is essentially a matter for the decision-maker. In a case in which the decision-maker is the Tribunal, it is not open to the Court to set aside the decision on the basis that the Court disagrees with the weight to be attributed to a particular factor. With this consideration in mind, I turn to the particular submissions made on behalf of the applicant.
Qualitative test
24 The applicant complained that, in considering the nature of the breach of condition and the significance of the breach, especially by reference to the purposes for which the visa was granted, the Tribunal applied a quantitative test, whereas it should have applied a qualitative test. He argued that the Tribunal simply determined the number of subjects he had failed and treated that number of failures as a breach of the condition, and as a significant breach.
25 In Kim v Witton, Sackville J approved the approach taken by the Immigration Review Tribunal in a case called Sekido, in which that tribunal had taken into account both the proportionality of the breach and the bona fides, or lack thereof, of the visa holder. In Baidakova, the course requirement in issue was attendance at not less than 90 per cent of classes. It was a case that lent itself to the application of a quantitative test. Katz J expressed the view that it was appropriate for the Tribunal in that case, to have taken account of factors other than the number of classes that the visa holder had failed to attend. These factors included health problems experienced by the visa holder. In that sense, Baidakova could be said to be a case in which a qualitative test was applied, although there was no suggestion that the Tribunal should have ignored the failure of the visa holder to attend at least 90 per cent of classes. The “qualitative” factors were taken into account for the purpose of determining whether, despite the shortfall in the classes attended, it could be said that there had been a substantial non-compliance with the condition.
26 It cannot therefore be said that a quantitative approach is to be disregarded. It was open to the Tribunal in the present case to rely upon the proportion of subjects failed by the applicant as a significant indication of whether he had complied substantially with course requirements.
27 Nor can it be said that the Tribunal in the present case determined the issue of substantial compliance solely on the basis that the applicant had failed a high proportion of his subjects. The criteria set out in PAM3, which the Tribunal quoted in its reasons for decision, could be said to be relevant to a “qualitative” test. In one passage which I have quoted above, the Tribunal discussed the awareness of the applicant that his performance was below the required standard before reaching the conclusion that “in all the circumstances” it found that the breach of condition 8202 was significant. It added that the applicant “appreciated” the breach. It then went on to discuss the applicant’s psychological state before coming to its conclusion which, again, I have quoted above. Plainly, the Tribunal was taking into account both the “proportionality” of the breach and the applicant’s bona fides, or lack thereof. It may be that the applicant is dissatisfied with the weight given to the evidence about his psychological condition, but that is not a matter about which he can complain when the question is one of error of law.
The finding as to “flouting”
28 In one of the passages I have quoted from the Tribunal’s reasons for decision, the Tribunal concluded that, because the applicant was aware that his performance was below the required standard, the breach might reasonably be interpreted as flouting the condition. In the reasons for decision that were the subject of Modi, the Tribunal expressed itself in similar terms. The Tribunal there said that Mr Modi had been made aware by his education provider a number of times that his performance and attendance were not satisfactory. It followed this sentence with the statement:
“The breach might therefore reasonably be interpreted as flouting the conditions for which the visa was granted.”
29 In his judgment, at [28] - [29], Heerey J said:
“The meaning given by the Macquarie Dictionary for ‘flout’ as a transitive verb is ‘to mock; scoff at; treat with disdain or contempt’. Similarly the Shorter Oxford gives the meaning ‘to mock, jeer, insult; to express contempt for’. But a reading of par 24 of the Tribunal’s decision quoted above indicates that the Tribunal has taken ‘flouting’ as synonymous with acting knowingly or intentionally. There is a substantial difference between the two concepts. Clearly enough it was open on the evidence for the Tribunal to find that the applicant knew that for much of the relevant period he was not satisfying the course requirements at Chalmers and that that was a breach of his visa condition. But the Tribunal seems to have attributed a more serious level of breach to the applicant by misunderstanding the concept of flouting and using a finding that he flouted the condition as part of its reasoning process to arrive at a conclusion that there was not substantial compliance.
I conclude therefore that the Tribunal has misapplied the law and the ground specified in s 476(1)(e) is made out.”
30 On this basis, Heerey J set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for further consideration according to law. The Full Court allowed the appeal from Heerey J, set aside his Honour’s orders and in lieu thereof ordered that the application for review be dismissed with costs. At [24] - [26], the Full Court said:
“The Tribunal, in determining whether on the facts found by it Mr Modi had substantially complied with condition 8202, was entitled to have regard to the nature of Mr Modi’s conduct that resulted in his having failed to comply with his course requirements. It described that conduct as involving a ‘flouting’ of the visa conditions. When it did so it was doing no more than making a factual assessment of a matter that it was entitled to take into account in determining whether there was substantial compliance. That factual assessment involved no error of law.
As we read the Tribunal’s decision, it consciously had regard to the notion of ‘deliberate’ flouting as an element to be considered in the light of all the circumstances in determining whether there had been substantial compliance. The Tribunal did no more than have appropriate regard to the considerations referred to in cases such as Kim v Witton and Baidakova and its approach did not involve any error of law. As we have noted, it was not disputed that the concept of ‘deliberate’ flouting could be relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of the application.
It is true that the Tribunal made reference to ‘the test’ in Baidakova, and as Gray J pointed out in Shrestha, it is not right to regard those cases as establishing any ‘test’. We consider however that it is clear from the Tribunal’s reasons as a whole and in particular from paragraphs 23, 24 and 28 of those reasons that it was not in truth applying a ‘test’ and was not thereby diverted from the task of considering whether, in all the relevant circumstances, Mr Modi had complied substantially with condition 8202 of his visa.”
31 Modi is in point in the present case. Even if it were the case that the Tribunal misconstrued the word “flouted”, by regarding it as synonymous with acting, knowing or intentionally, the Tribunal did not thereby make an error of law. It did no more than to make a factual assessment of a matter that it was entitled to take into account in determining whether there was substantial compliance. Indeed, in the present case, the Tribunal expressed this element of its reasons appropriately when it said:
“The visa applicant appreciated the breach.”
The applicant’s psychological condition
32 The submissions on behalf of the applicant accepted that the applicant appreciated that he was performing below standard in school and therefore he might not meet course requirements. The submission made reference to the reports of the psychologists, saying that they “identified contributive factors for his under performance which led to the alleged breach of condition.” The applicant contended that the Tribunal disregarded this.
33 In truth, the Tribunal devoted a substantial paragraph of its reasons to assessing the psychological evidence. It took a view of that evidence that was less favourable to the applicant’s case than it might have been. In doing so, however, the Tribunal was exercising its function of finding the facts. Disagreement on the part of the applicant with the facts as found cannot be sufficient to make out an error of law. The applicant simply contended that the Tribunal had made an error of fact.
34 The applicant complained of the finding of the Tribunal that there was no documentation or medical evidence before March 2000 that the applicant was suffering from depression or other conditions that required ongoing medical treatment during the relevant period. The applicant drew attention to evidence that he did seek medical assistance for his sleeplessness during his time at La Trobe University and at Holmesglen College of TAFE. He suggested that the Tribunal failed to take into account the uncontested psychologists’ reports of the applicant’s depression during the relevant period. Again, these are attempts to revisit the facts, a process which is not open when this Court exercises its function of judicial review pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act. The Tribunal was entitled to accept or reject the evidence of the psychologists and to give greater weight to one piece of evidence as against another. In any event, all that the Tribunal appears to have been doing was to point out that the applicant had not sought diagnosis or treatment from any psychologist during the period when he was said to be suffering from depression. The psychologists whose evidence was before the Tribunal had examined him after that period and had made their diagnoses on the basis of his retrospective accounts of his symptoms. The Tribunal was well aware of the applicant’s evidence that he had obtained sedatives from a doctor on several occasions to assist with his sleeping problems. It recounted that evidence in the course of its reasons.
Other alleged errors of law
35 The applicant’s submissions suggested that, although he appreciated that his conduct involved breach of a condition, he had “tried frantically rectifying it” and that the Tribunal should have found that he had at least tried to comply with the condition. Again, this was a matter of fact for the Tribunal.
36 The applicant queried whether the Tribunal had given full consideration to all relevant circumstances of the case, despite its use of the phrase “in all the circumstances”. This complaint was made in the context of the argument that the Tribunal had failed to accept the uncontested evidence of the psychologists. As I have said, it is plain from its reasons that the Tribunal had in mind the evidence of the applicant on this subject and did not overlook any of the relevant circumstances.
37 The applicant complained that the Minister had failed to supply the Court with a copy of the transcript of proceedings before the Tribunal. The Minister has no obligation to provide the Court with a transcript of the evidence before the Tribunal. It is open to an applicant for judicial review to obtain and rely on the transcript of proceedings before the Tribunal if it is relevant to an issue raised. The applicant did not make reference to the transcript in the present case.
The “no evidence” ground
38 The applicant raised the ground in s 476(1)(g) of the Migration Act, namely that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision. This ground can only be made out if one or other of the circumstances specified in s 476(4) can be established. In the present case the only possibility would be s 476(4)(b), namely that the Tribunal based the decision on the existence of a particular fact and that fact did not exist. The applicant made no attempt to establish the ground on this basis. In the application, the ground was particularised as the absence of evidence or other material that the applicant failed to comply with condition 8202 on a proper interpretation of that condition. In the applicant’s submissions, it was suggested that the Tribunal had treated the applicant’s failure in a number of subjects as intentional or negligent and therefore as a breach of condition. This was not the reasoning process of the Tribunal. It merely took account of the fact that, as it found, the applicant was aware that his performance was below the required standard and appreciated that he was in breach. It made no mention of intentional or negligent breach. The “no evidence” ground is not made out.
Conclusion
39 The applicant has therefore failed to make out any ground of review of the Tribunal’s decision. His application must therefore be dismissed. The Minister having sought an order
for costs, no reason appears why such an order should not be made in the Minister’s favour.
|
I certify that the preceding thirty-nine (39) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gray. |
Associate:
Dated: 20 December 2001
|
Counsel for the Applicant: |
Leave was granted to Ms C Lo to appear as a friend of the Court |
|
|
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent: |
Mr J Gibson |
|
|
|
|
Solicitor for the Respondent: |
Australian Government Solicitor |
|
|
|
|
Date of Hearing: |
13 July 2001 |
|
|
|
|
Date of Judgment: |
20 December 2001 |
