Case: Khanam v Minister for Immigration &amp; Citizenship [2009] FMCA 285
Outcome: cited
affirming the decision of the Tribunal ( Khanam v Minister for Immigration &amp; Citizenship [2009] FMCA 285) , the Court found in summary as follows: The Tribunal focussed on whether the visa applicant had satisfied the criteria in cl 679.224. Such an approach was neither erroneous nor in contravention of its jurisdiction (at [11]). The Tribunal accepted that the visa applicant had satisfied and continued to satisfy the criteria in subcll 679.211 to 214 (at [12]). The Tribunal correctly identified the relevant legislation which guided its consideration, and did not misconstrue nor misapply the prescribed visa criteria (at [13]). The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence both before the Department and the Tribunal itself (at [15]). The Tribunal member balanced the matters favouring and disfavouring the required state of satisfaction, and concluded that he was not satisfied that the expressed intention of the visa applicant only to visit Australia was genuine (at [16]). There was no ground for concluding that the Tribunal acted in a manner that would attract judicial intervention. Appeal to this Court The appellant continued to be self-represented in proceedings before this Court. Her grounds of appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrate were as follows: That the learned Federal Magistrate has failed to consider the legal requirements, regarding the family sponsored visitor visa, the appellant fulfilled the requirements of the criteria as laid down under the Migration Act , and the relevant migration legislations, but the decision of the MRT was upheld, the decision of the MRT is full of legal errors coupled with the jurisdictional error. The learned FM simply upheld the decision of the MRT, without giving his own reasons of judgment. That the appellant submitted the whole evidence of the visa applicant that within the allowed time, the visa applicant shall go back, in this regard the appellant requested any bond or any security required in this behalf. The appellant has satisfied the criteria laid down in subclass 679, the appellant also satisfied all the requirement as laid down in cl 679.214 of the Sch 2 of the Migration Regulations . The applicant also duly complied with r 1.03 of the Regulations, and has also fulfilled the criterion as required under cl 679.212, and cl 679.213 of the Migration Regulation. In the MRT decision it has been laid down that the applicant has not satisfied 679.214 at the time of the application read with subclass 679.211, this is the incorrect application of the law. The most important question is of the satisfactions of the respondent, the satisfaction is their will, and discretion to which there is no yard stick to satisfy them. This is a complicated question of satisfaction; the appellant only requests that if there is a question of discretion, it should be exercised in favour of the applicant. That the respondents did not applied the proper law and procedure, this has resulted in the error of law, coupled with the jurisdictional laws, the laws of natural justice have been clearly violated. In written submissions the Minister contended that, although expressed as three separate grounds, the appellant actually only sought to appeal one ground with different particulars, namely that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant considerations being the requirements other than cl 679.224.