Kaur v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Jaskaran Kaur, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed a delegate's decision to refuse her a Student (Temporary) (class TU) Student (subclass 500) visa. The delegate had found that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant. The applicant contended that the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error, specifically by failing to provide her with a hearing despite her objection to a decision without one, and by not inviting her for a hearing when she had repeatedly requested one.

The Court was required to determine whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by proceeding to a decision without inviting the applicant to a hearing. This involved considering the provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) concerning the Tribunal's obligations to invite applicants to hearings and the circumstances under which such an invitation is not required. The Court also considered whether the Tribunal erred by making a decision without seeking further information from the applicant, particularly in light of the applicant's concerns about her migration agents and her personal circumstances.

The Court reasoned that the applicant had lost her entitlement to a hearing because she failed to provide requested information to the Tribunal by the specified deadline of 7 March 2019. Although the applicant had subsequently indicated she did not consent to a decision without a hearing, this was after the deadline had passed. Under section 360(2)(c) of the Act, read with section 359C(1), the Tribunal was not required to invite the applicant to a hearing if she failed to provide information when invited. The Court found that the invitation to provide information was properly sent and received by the applicant, and her request for an extension of time was made after the deadline. Consequently, the Tribunal was lawfully entitled to proceed to a decision without a hearing and without seeking further information, as section 359C(1) expressly permitted this course of action. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's actions did not offend procedural fairness obligations and did not constitute jurisdictional error.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.