Krummrey v MIMIA

The case of Krummrey v MIMIA involved the appellant, a German citizen, who sought judicial review of a decision by the Tribunal to affirm the cancellation of his visa. The appellant had been granted a subclass 956 visa, which allowed multiple entries and stays of up to three months. He operated a business under the name 'Implex Exclusive', importing and installing laminated ceiling and floor panels. The appellant's visa was cancelled due to a breach of condition 8112, which prohibits engaging in work that might otherwise be carried out by an Australian citizen or permanent resident unless the visa holder intends only to visit Australia temporarily for business purposes.

The key legal issues were whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to affirm the delegate's decision without complying with section 119 of the Migration Act, and whether the circumstances justifying the grant of the visa had ceased to exist. The appellant argued that previous cases such as Zubair and Ahmed were wrongly decided and should not be followed. However, the court acknowledged that it would regard itself as bound by these precedents.

The court determined that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to affirm the decision of the delegate, as all relevant facts were traversed before the Tribunal and the appellant had an opportunity to respond. The court also found that the circumstances justifying the visa grant no longer existed, as the appellant had formed an intention to remain permanently in Australia. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs.