Case Study Analysis On Jurisdictional Error â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Case Study Analysis On Jurisdictional Error? Answer: Introduction Jurisdictional error can be described as a mistake of jurisdictional fact, that is, where a jurisdictional fact is determined erroneously then this may result in a jurisdictional error. This was the position held in SZMDS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[1] where the Court relied on illogicality or irrationality as factors to determine jurisdictional error.[2] Jurisdictional error arises where a judicial officer acts in excess of jurisdiction, fails to perform a duty, acts in bad faith, identifies the wrong legal issue or relies on unreasonableness or illogicality, in fact-finding and analysis.[3] The case in question Singh v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 1901 is a migration case where the Tribunal determined that an applicant did not qualify for a student visa based on considerable gaps in the applicants studies, immigration history and course change among others. The Federal Circuit Court in its review determined that the Tribunals approach amounted to a juri sdictional error as relevant factors were not considered. The following discourse aims to analyse the concept of jurisdictional error by examining the criteria used in the determination of the Federal Circuit Court in the aforementioned case study. An Analysis of the Jurisdictional Error Determined by the Federal Circuit Court In its determination, the court relied on the provisions of s 499 of the Migration Act 1958(Cth) and the Ministerial Direction No 53 which provide a set of factors to be considered in arriving at a decision when faced with the issues arising from the case in question. The applicants argument in challenging the Tribunals decision was that it had failed to take into consideration relevant material in terms of evidence highlighting the applicants mental healthcare and reasons for changing courses. In Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000],[4] the court held that acting outside the limits or powers bestowed upon a decision maker amounted to a jurisdictional error. This description was reaffirmed and expanded in Kirk v Industrial Court NSW [2010],[5] where the court recognised failure to consider relevant factors a jurisdictional error.[6] In the case in question, the Federal Circuit Court recognised that the Tribunal had limited its consideration to factors that the Direction No 53 did not consider as issues for consideration and disregarded the provision by the Direction to allow for reasonable career or study path changes. Failure to consider relevant factors and evidence that would illuminate these factors as such, guided by the principles in Kirk v Industrial Court NSW [2010],[7] amounts to a jurisdictional error. The court in question found that failure to consider the relevant material mentioned above constituted a jurisdictional error. Another factor the court relied on was unreasonableness; ignoring evidence with regard to the applicants diagnosis and written statement providing reasons for the course change accounting to failure in completing the exercise of authority embarked on as a decision maker.[8] The Tribunal in its analysis found that the applicants studies illuminated considerable gaps; however, it evidently failed to consider that the applicant had been diagnosed with depression which he averred contributed to the gaps in question. Evidently, failure to assess this evidence led to an unreasonable finding which would have otherwise been mitigated had the Tribunal considered the factors as required by law and provided for in the Direction No 53. The Tribunals approach amounts to a failure to consider relevant information, a consideration of irrelevant factors as well as a failure to observe statutorily imposed procedures. Additionally, it illuminates a manifestation of unreasonableness with regard to the approach adopted. All these are characteristics of jurisdictional error as illustrated in Kirk v Industrial Court NSW [2010].[9] Evidently, it can, therefore, be adduced that the Tribunals decision constituted a jurisdictional error as it failed to adhere to the procedural guidelines prescribed by the Direction No 53 and also adopted an unreasonable approach to interpretation. Conclusion In conclusion, the discourse above describes jurisdictional error as where a decision maker adopts a position or approach that constitutes an error of a jurisdictional fact. As illustrated in the cases highlighted above, this errors can manifest in unreasonableness, failure to consider prescribed factors or the consideration of irrelevant factors. In Singh v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 1901, the Tribunals decision failed to consider the factors set by the Migration Act as well as the Ministerial Decision. It ignored relevant information by way of evidence of the applicants depressions and written statement and instead opted to restrict limit its consideration to irrelevant facts. Guided by the principles illustrated above, this approach without a doubt amounts to a jurisdictional error. References Alan Freckelton, Administrative Decision-Making in Australian Migration Law (ANU eText, 2015) Nicholas Aroney, Peter Gerangelos, Sarah Murray, James Stellios, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia: History, Principle and Interpretation (Cambridge University Press, 2015) Victoria University, BLO5607(C) Visa Compliance, Cancellations and Review: Judicial Review Resource Book (Victoria University, 2017) Htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1802 Kirk v Industrial Court NSW [2010] HCA 1 Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] Marketing; (2000) 204 CLR 82 Singh v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 1901 SZMDS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 210 Migration Act 1958(Cth) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Ministerial Direction No 53 Assessing the Genuine Temporary Entrant Criterion for Students (2011 [1] SZMDS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 210 [2] Alan Freckelton, Administrative Decision-Making in Australian Business Law (ANU eText, 2015) 191-92 [3] Nicholas Aroney, Peter Gerangelos, Sarah Murray, James Stellios, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia: History, Principle and Interpretation ( Cambridge University Press, 2015) 532 [4] Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82 [5] Kirk v Industrial Court NSW [2010] HCA 1 [6] Victoria University, BLO5607(C) Visa Compliance, Cancellations and Review: Judicial Review Resource Book (Victoria University, 2017) 9 [7] Kirk v Industrial Court NSW [2010] HCA 1 [8] Singh v Minister for Immigration Anor [2017] FCCA 1901; See Htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1802 [9] Kirk v Industrial Court NSW [2010] HCA 1