Hanna v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The case of Hanna v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection involved a Lebanese citizen, the appellant, who applied for a Partner (Migrant) visa following his marriage to the sponsor in Lebanon in 2010. The appellant was granted a Partner (Provisional) visa and subsequently arrived in Australia. However, the sponsor withdrew her sponsorship, alleging that she had been the victim of domestic violence at the hands of the appellant. Despite this, the appellant claimed that he was the victim of domestic violence and applied for a permanent resident visa. An independent expert concluded that the appellant was not a victim of family violence, and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused the appellant's application on the basis that he had not established that he was the victim of domestic violence. The appellant sought judicial review of this decision in the Federal Circuit Court, which was dismissed.

The legal issues in this case revolved around whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review of the Minister's decision to refuse to grant a Partner visa. The court had to determine if the Tribunal misapplied the correct legal test in its review of the decision. The court also had to consider whether the Tribunal's reference to the repealed version of the legislation constituted a misapprehension of the task it was required to perform.

The court held that the reference to the repealed version of the legislation did not disclose any misapprehension by the Tribunal of the task it was required to perform. The error made was purely formal and could not be said to have affected, in any way, the function the Tribunal performed. The correct legal test was applied, and the legislative amendments came into force in 2009. References to the repealed legislation in reasons published in 2014 were undesirable but did not constitute a jurisdictional error. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

The court made two orders: (1) the appeal be dismissed, and (2) the appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal as agreed or taxed. Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.