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

The plaintiff, Asad, sought constitutional or other writs, including mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari, against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute concerned the delegate's decision on 4 February 2021 to refuse the plaintiff a Skilled – Regional Sponsored (Provisional) (Class SP) (Subclass 489) visa. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the delegate's decision to refuse the visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court was required to determine if the delegate's factual findings, particularly regarding the plaintiff's English language proficiency and presence in Saudi Arabia at the time of the test, were illogical or irrational, and whether the delegate had failed to properly consider the evidence provided by the plaintiff.

The court reasoned that a decision-maker's findings of fact are not rendered illogical or irrational simply because an alternative conclusion was available or because a party disagrees with the weight attributed to certain evidence. The delegate's decision was to be read fairly, and the court found that the delegate had considered the information provided by the plaintiff and explained the weight given to it. The delegate's concerns about the authenticity of the English test, including issues with the test photograph, the absence of a passport number on the verification website, and the lack of third-party verifiable evidence of the plaintiff's presence in Saudi Arabia, were found to be logically and rationally capable of supporting the refusal. Therefore, the delegate's findings and reasoning process did not constitute jurisdictional error.

The plaintiff's application for a constitutional or other writ was dismissed with costs.