Chopra v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 843

Federal Court of Australia

Chopra v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 843 Appeal from: Chopra v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2020] FCCA 2401

File number: NSD 1050 of 2020

Judgment of: LOGAN J

Date of judgment: 24 May 2023

Catchwords: MIGRATION – where appellant seeks extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against interlocutory order of the Federal Circuit Court dismissing his application for judicial review of decision made by Administrative Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal) to affirm Minister's decision to refuse applicant a Higher Education visa based on an absence of satisfaction that the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant as required for the visa by cl 500.212(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) – whether, if an extension granted, the proposed grounds of appeal enjoys reasonable prospect of success to warrant a grant of leave to appeal – where the Court's appellate jurisdiction is invoked – whether the primary judge erred in not concluding the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations, namely, the reasons appellant did not complete Bachelor's degree – where the relevant consideration is the visa criterion in cl 500.212 of the Regulations was considered - whether the primary judge denied the appellant procedural fairness by not finding the Tribunal denied the appellant an interpreter – where the appellant, through his migration agent, did not request an interpreter – where the Tribunal reached a state of administrative satisfaction to whether the appellant was a genuine student in terms of cl 500.12 of the Regulations – whether the reasoning which led to the alleged requisite satisfaction was infected by a wrong finding of fact, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 considered – where the primary judge found it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that it was not satisfied that the appellant was a genuine student – no error in the primary judge's conclusion - where the proposed grounds of appeal do not provide an arguable basis that an appeal should not be allowed to go forward – where although extension of time granted, leave to appeal refused – application for leave to appeal dismissed