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

In *Domingos v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*, Judge Driver of the Federal Court of Australia considered an application for review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to refuse a student visa. The applicant, Mr Domingos, contended that the AAT had failed to consider a significant claim he had made regarding his potential obligation for military service in Brazil, which he argued was relevant to his genuine temporary entrant status.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the AAT had committed jurisdictional error by failing to take into account a substantial and clearly articulated argument advanced by Mr Domingos. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the AAT's finding that Mr Domingos had no concerns about military service in Brazil was made in disregard of his explicit submission and accompanying documentary evidence on the matter. The Court also considered the materiality of any such error.

Judge Driver found that Mr Domingos had provided a detailed submission and a copy of a Brazilian decree-law concerning military service obligations, which indicated he could be subject to service until the age of 45. Despite this, the AAT's decision record stated that the applicants had indicated they did not have concerns about potential military service. The Court applied the principle that a tribunal fails to observe its obligations if it does not take account of a substantial and clearly articulated argument. The Court concluded that the AAT's finding regarding military service was legally unreasonable and material to the overall decision, constituting jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the Court ordered that a writ of certiorari issue to quash the AAT's decision and a writ of mandamus issue, requiring the AAT to redetermine Mr Domingos' application according to law.