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

This case concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding a partner visa. The applicant, Mr. Almpantis, sought to challenge the AAT's finding that he had not suffered family violence, which was based on the opinion of an independent expert. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the respondent.

The central legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the independent expert's opinion, which the AAT accepted, was vitiated by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant argued that the expert misunderstood the statutory definition of "relevant family violence" by: (a) importing a requirement for controlling or coercive intent, (b) misunderstanding the term "wellbeing," and (c) failing to understand that events occurring after the cessation of the relationship could constitute relevant family violence. The applicant also contended that the expert failed to consider certain integers of his claim, namely threats from "bikies" and the deprivation of his dog.

Justice Kendall determined that the independent expert did not err in her understanding of the statutory question. While acknowledging similarities to a previous case, *Perez*, the Court found that the expert in this instance did not exclude any incidents from consideration. Instead, the expert considered the incident involving the sponsor's brother and concluded it did not constitute family violence committed by the sponsor, as there was no evidence the sponsor had instructed her brother to initiate the argument. Crucially, the Court found that the expert correctly understood that for family violence to be relevant under the Regulations, at least part of it must have occurred while the relationship existed. The expert's finding that the alleged threats from the "bikies" occurred after the relationship ended, and that there was no evidence of family violence during the relationship, meant these post-relationship events could not, on their own, form the basis of a finding of relevant family violence. The Court distinguished *Perez* on the basis that there was no uncertainty regarding the end date of the relationship in this case.

Consequently, the Court found no jurisdictional error in the independent expert's opinion or the Tribunal's decision to accept it. The application was therefore dismissed.