Khanam v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Judge Barnes of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Ms. Khanam, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration. The dispute concerned the Minister's decision to cancel Ms. Khanam's visa, which was based on information suggesting that the sponsor of her visa was not who she claimed to be. Specifically, the Minister's delegate considered anonymous information received in 2007 and 2010, which identified the applicant's son as "RAZEE Saleh" or "Saleh Imam Al Razee" with a specific date of birth. This information was deemed consistent with details from a reliable source (the New Zealand Department of Immigration) that the sponsor had a brother named "Al Razi."

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's decision to equate the applicant's nephew with the sponsor's brother, based on the provided information, was legally unreasonable. The applicant argued that the similarity in the names "Saleh Imam Al Razee" and "Saleh Imam Al Razi" was so striking that it would be highly improbable for these to refer to different individuals. This, the applicant contended, meant the delegate's conclusion lacked an evident and intelligible justification.

The Court considered the concept of legal unreasonableness as articulated in *Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh* and the High Court decision in *Li*. Legal unreasonableness can arise either from an underlying jurisdictional error or, alternatively, when a decision is outcome-focused and lacks "common sense," appearing arbitrary or capricious. This latter category of unreasonableness occurs when a decision-maker has a "genuinely free discretion" but the exercise of that power lacks "an evident and intelligible justification." The Court noted that while the applicant submitted on the origin and pronunciation of the names, there was no evidence before it to support these contentions.

The Court did not make final orders in the provided text.