Chikweu v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

Chikweu sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that affirmed a delegate's decision to refuse his application for a student visa. The refusal was based on the delegate's finding that Chikweu had not satisfied a criterion that required him to be enrolled in a course of study. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia dismissed Chikweu's application for judicial review. Chikweu appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Federal Circuit and Family Court for further consideration.

The court had to decide whether the AAT had made an error of law in failing to consider evidence of Chikweu's financial capacity that was a required criterion for grant of the visa. The court had to determine if the error was material and if there was a realistic possibility that the outcome could have been different if the error had not occurred. The court had to consider whether the enrolment criterion and the financial criterion were independent or factually related. The court also had to consider whether there was a realistic possibility that the outcome could have been different if Chikweu had been given an adjournment to allow him an opportunity to satisfy the enrolment criterion.

The court found that the AAT had made an error of law by failing to consider evidence of Chikweu's financial capacity. The court found that the error was material because it was possible that if the AAT had considered the evidence of financial capacity, it may have been satisfied that Chikweu had satisfied the financial criterion. The court found that the enrolment criterion and the financial criterion were factually related because if Chikweu had been enrolled in a course of study, it was likely that he would have satisfied the financial criterion as well. The court found that there was a realistic possibility that the outcome could have been different if Chikweu had been given an adjournment to allow him an opportunity to satisfy the enrolment criterion. The court found that the AAT had not affirmatively concluded that the outcome would have been the same if the error had not occurred.

The appeal was allowed, the first respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, and the matter was remitted to the Federal Circuit and Family Court for further consideration.