KARSTEN v Minister for Immigration

Karsten (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) which affirmed the refusal of his Partner (Residence) (Class BS) visa (subclass 814). The applicant had also applied for an Interdependency visa. The central dispute concerned whether the applicant had experienced relevant domestic violence, which was a factor he contended should have been considered by the MRT in assessing his visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit Court was whether the MRT had failed to adequately consider or properly assess the evidence relating to alleged domestic violence. The applicant argued that the MRT’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error due to this failure.

Judge Street found that the MRT had indeed failed to properly consider the evidence of domestic violence presented by the applicant. The Tribunal had focused narrowly on the applicant's failure to provide a police report, overlooking other corroborating evidence and the specific circumstances of the alleged abuse. The Court held that the MRT was required to make findings on the issue of domestic violence, and its failure to do so constituted a jurisdictional error.

The Court ordered that the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal be set aside and remitted to the MRT for redetermination according to law.