Isanan v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an application for judicial review brought by Ms Isanan against the Minister for Immigration. The dispute arose from the refusal of Ms Isanan's application for a Permanent Partner Visa. The core of the refusal was that Ms Isanan's sponsoring partner, Mr Scott Treeby, had died before Ms Isanan entered Australia. The case was heard by Antoni Lucev J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether Ms Isanan was in the migration zone at the time of Mr Treeby's death, and whether the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) had made a jurisdictional error. Central to these issues was the question of whether the evidence before the MRT regarding the time of Mr Treeby's death was sufficiently probative, particularly given the MRT's obligation to act informally and on substantial merits without regard to legal technicalities.

His Honour considered the evidence presented, including a "Notification of Changes" form signed by Ms Isanan on 25 January 2013, which stated Mr Treeby passed away at 7:40 pm on 19 January 2013 and that Ms Isanan arrived in Australia at 11:30 pm on the same day. However, at the MRT hearing, Ms Isanan testified that she obtained this information from Mr Treeby's sister and did not know the exact time of her arrival in Perth or when she arrived at her deceased partner's sister's house. She recalled being told Mr Treeby died at night, possibly around 7:00 pm or 7:30 pm, but did not know if his sister found him deceased. The court noted that the MRT's task was to determine if Ms Isanan entered Australia as a holder of a Provisional Partner Visa after Mr Treeby died, and that an exception existed for granting a Permanent Partner Visa if the sponsoring partner died after the applicant entered Australia on such a visa.

The court found that the evidence before the MRT was not sufficiently probative to establish the precise time of Mr Treeby's death in relation to Ms Isanan's arrival in Australia. Consequently, the MRT had erred in its determination of this crucial factual issue, leading to a jurisdictional error. The court therefore set aside the decision of the MRT.