Ajiboye v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to cancel his Student (Subclass 500) visa. The visa had been granted on 31 March 2017. A notice of intention to cancel the visa was issued on 25 August 2017, citing a ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(g) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and r 2.43(1)(o) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), specifically that a departmental officer in Pretoria had acted improperly in granting the visa. The applicant responded to the notice, and on 17 October 2017, the visa was cancelled. Subsequent reviews by the second respondent affirmed the delegate's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the second respondent's decision to affirm the cancellation of the applicant's visa was affected by jurisdictional error. The applicant contended that his visa would have been granted even in the absence of the alleged fraud by the departmental officer and that cancellation would cause hardship. The court was required to consider the validity of the cancellation decision in light of the improper conduct of the departmental officer and the applicant's submissions.

Judge Jarrett dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated jurisdictional error by the second respondent. The court reasoned that the ground for cancellation, namely the improper conduct of a departmental officer in granting the visa, was a valid basis for cancellation under the Act and Regulations. The applicant's arguments regarding the inevitability of the visa grant and the hardship caused by cancellation did not establish that the decision-making process itself was legally flawed to the point of jurisdictional error. The court noted that the applicant had been provided with information regarding the investigation into the grant of visas at the Pretoria post and had been given opportunities to comment.

Consequently, the amended application filed on 23 June 2020 was dismissed. The applicant was also ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the application, fixed in the sum of $7,676.00.