Lamichhane v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Ms Lamichhane, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that affirmed the Minister for Immigration's refusal to grant her a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa and a Partner (Residence) (Class BS) (Subclass 801) visa. The central issue was whether the AAT had erred in its assessment of compelling reasons for not applying Criterion 3001 of Schedule 3 to the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), which Ms Lamichhane had failed to meet due to the late lodgement of her application.

The court was required to determine whether the AAT had provided adequate reasons for its findings regarding Ms Lamichhane's claimed compelling reasons for not applying Criterion 3001. Specifically, the AAT needed to be satisfied that there were compelling reasons not to apply the criterion, and the court had to assess if the AAT's reasoning process in reaching its conclusion was legally sound and intelligible. The applicant argued that the AAT's decision was affected by jurisdictional error due to a lack of adequate reasons.

Dowdy J found that the AAT had failed to provide adequate reasons for its findings concerning the compelling reasons presented by Ms Lamichhane. The AAT had acknowledged the applicant's submissions regarding her fear of social stigma, harassment, and potential persecution in Nepal due to her inter-religious marriage, but ultimately dismissed these claims for a lack of reliable evidence. However, the AAT's reasoning for this dismissal was considered legally unreasonable and lacked an intelligible justification, particularly in light of the serious nature of the fears expressed by the applicant and her sponsor. The court concluded that the AAT's decision was affected by jurisdictional error.

The application for constitutional writs of certiorari and mandamus was granted. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the AAT for redetermination according to law.