ARORA (Migration)

The applicant, Mr. Arora, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse his application for a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) visa, subclass 820. The primary dispute concerned whether Mr. Arora and his partner were in a genuine and continuing relationship, as required by the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the delegate's decision to refuse the visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the delegate had failed to take into account relevant considerations or taken into account irrelevant considerations when assessing the genuineness and continuing nature of the relationship, particularly in light of the evidence presented regarding shared finances and knowledge of each other's family members.

Justice Brophy found that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error by failing to properly consider the entirety of the evidence before them. While acknowledging that some evidence was inconsistent or limited, the delegate had placed undue weight on these aspects without adequately assessing the cumulative effect of all the evidence. The court reiterated the principle that a delegate must consider all relevant evidence, even if some aspects are weak, and that a finding of a genuine and continuing relationship can be made even where there are limitations in certain categories of evidence, such as shared finances or detailed knowledge of extended family. The delegate's failure to engage with the totality of the evidence, including evidence of the couple's cohabitation and social interaction, amounted to an error.

The court set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the application to the Department of Home Affairs for redetermination according to law.