Dhillon v Minister for Home Affairs

In *Dhillon v Minister for Home Affairs*, the applicant, Mr. Dhillon, sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to refuse his application for a partner visa (subclass 820). The core of the dispute concerned whether Mr. Dhillon had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the Minister that his relationship with his partner was genuine and continuing, as required by the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister had erred in law by failing to properly consider all the evidence presented by Mr. Dhillon in support of his partner visa application. Specifically, the Court was asked to determine if the delegate had given adequate weight to the documentary evidence and statutory declarations provided, and whether the delegate's adverse findings regarding the genuineness of the relationship were reasonably open on the evidence before them.

Judge Vasta found that the delegate had failed to adequately consider significant portions of the evidence, including statutory declarations from friends and family, and had placed undue emphasis on minor inconsistencies. The Court reiterated the principle that a delegate must consider all relevant evidence and that adverse findings must be supported by the evidence. The delegate's decision was found to be affected by an error of law because it was not open to conclude, on the evidence before the delegate, that the relationship was not genuine and continuing. Consequently, the Court set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the application to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.