Bhamani v Minister for Immigration Citizenship Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This case concerned an application by two citizens of India for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The applicants had applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (subclass 500) visa, which was initially refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The refusal was based on the delegate's dissatisfaction that the primary applicant genuinely intended to remain in Australia temporarily. The applicants sought review of this decision by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit Court was whether the Tribunal's decision to affirm the delegate's refusal was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Tribunal had properly afforded the applicants procedural fairness, particularly in relation to the Tribunal's requests for information under sections 359 and 359A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the applicants' failure to respond to these requests.

Judge Jarrett reasoned that the Tribunal had complied with the procedural requirements of the *Migration Act*. The Tribunal had sent letters to the first applicant via email, which, under section 379C(5) of the Act, were deemed to have been received on the same day. The court found no evidence to suggest these letters were dispatched in error, nor was there a reasonable explanation provided by the applicants for their failure to respond to the requests for information. The Tribunal had also correctly applied sections 359C, 360(3), and 363A of the Act, which, in the absence of a response to the s 359A letter, meant the applicant was not entitled to appear before the Tribunal and the Tribunal lacked the power to facilitate a hearing. The court relied on the authority of *Hasran v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* (2010) 183 FCR 413 for its interpretation of the law.

Consequently, the court concluded that the application did not disclose any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's handling of the review application. The application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $6,100.