Farcas and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Class AS Subclass 801 Spouse visa. The applicant did not pass the character test due to a serious criminal record. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether there was "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation, considering Ministerial Direction 90.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's application for review was validly made, specifically concerning the requirement to provide a statement of reasons under section 29(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The respondent argued that the application was invalid due to the absence of a statement of reasons, contending that this omission could not be cured by a subsequent notice issued under section 29AB of the AAT Act, particularly in light of the strict timeframes imposed by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided oral reasons for his application within the statutory timeframe and that a subsequent written statement of reasons was also provided within the time allowed by a section 29AB notice. The Tribunal respectfully rejected the respondent's submission that the application was invalid, drawing on the reasoning in *Miller and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs* [2021] AATA 1623. The Tribunal held that the legislative scheme did not prescribe the manner in which reasons must be provided and that the applicant's oral explanation, followed by a written statement, satisfied the requirements. The Tribunal emphasised that technicalities should not defeat an applicant's opportunity for independent review, particularly when fundamental rights might be compromised.

The Tribunal concluded that the application was validly made and proceeded to consider the merits of the case. The decision under review was affirmed.