Chi Cong Le v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the matter of Chi Cong Le v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming the cancellation of his visa. The Tribunal had upheld a decision by a delegate of the Minister to cancel the visa based on the applicant's failure to provide accurate information about his relationship with his partner. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed the application for judicial review, and the applicant appealed to the High Court. The central issue in the appeal was whether the primary judge erred in finding that the applicant provided incorrect answers in his visa application forms and in finding that there was no jurisdictional error by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in considering documents to be subject to a valid s 375A certificate and thereby not providing those documents to the applicant.

The court found that the primary judge was correct in his findings. The court held that the ordinary meaning of the phrase "related to your partner by blood" was not displaced as suggested by the applicant. The court found that the relationship question in the visa application form was relevant to both the nature and the bona fides of the applicant's relationship with his sponsor, not just the former. The court held that the question was relevant to the legality and genuineness of the relationship, and that it could be relevant in all sorts of other ways. The court also found that the applicant was under an absolute obligation to give truthful answers to questions in visa application forms under s 101, and that there would be non-compliance even though the applicant may have been unaware that he or she was providing incorrect information. The court held that the Tribunal and the primary judge were correct and that this ground should fail.

The court dismissed the appeal with costs. The court held that the Tribunal and the primary judge were correct in their findings, and that the appeal should be dismissed. The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed.