1505623 (Migration)

The applicant, Mr. K. S. K. (a citizen of India), sought judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant him a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa. The Minister's decision was made under section 501(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) on the grounds that Mr. K. S. K. did not satisfy the character requirement. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal had previously affirmed the Minister's decision. The matter came before Justice Connolly of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to refuse the visa under section 501(1) was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the Court was asked to consider whether the Minister had failed to consider relevant considerations or had taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing Mr. K. S. K.'s character, and whether the Minister had adequately considered the best interests of Mr. K. S. K.'s child, who was an Australian citizen.

Justice Connolly found that the Minister's delegate had failed to properly consider the best interests of Mr. K. S. K.'s child, which was a mandatory consideration under section 501(3)(b) of the *Migration Act*. The delegate's assessment of this consideration was superficial and did not engage with the specific circumstances of the child. Furthermore, the delegate's assessment of the risk of recidivism was based on an outdated and incomplete understanding of Mr. K. S. K.'s rehabilitation efforts. Consequently, the Court held that the decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Minister be set aside and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.