Khadka v Minister for Immigration

In *Khadka v Minister for Immigration*, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) to affirm the refusal of her student visa application. The refusal was based on her alleged non-compliance with a condition of a previous student visa. The applicant had engaged a migration agent agency, which appointed migration agents as her authorised representatives. Although the applicant had informed the MRT of a change of address, she retained the migration agents as her authorised representatives. An invitation to attend a hearing was sent to the migration agents, and the applicant subsequently failed to attend the hearing, alleging she was not informed of it.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the MRT was required to seek further information from the applicant directly, given the circumstances surrounding the notification of the hearing, and whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court also considered whether the MRT had effectively invited the applicant to the hearing.

Justice Raphael found that the MRT had acted appropriately by sending the invitation to the authorised representatives, as per the established procedure. The Court reasoned that the applicant had appointed the migration agents as her authorised representatives and had not revoked this appointment. Therefore, the MRT was entitled to rely on the agents to communicate with the applicant. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and that the MRT had fulfilled its procedural obligations by inviting the applicant to the hearing through her appointed representatives.

The application for review was dismissed.