Le v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

In the matter of *Le v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*, the applicants, Thi Xuan Thao Le, Minh Trung Ho, and Phu Son Ho, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The core dispute concerned whether the first applicant, Ms Le, met the criteria for a specific visa, particularly in relation to English language proficiency requirements, which could be waived if exceptional circumstances applied. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the first respondent.

The court was required to determine whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in finding that Ms Le was not the cook at the IPho restaurant. This finding was central to the Tribunal's rejection of Ms Le's claim that exceptional circumstances justified granting her visa, despite her not meeting the English language requirements. The applicants contended that the Tribunal failed to properly consider evidence, including a letter of employment, and made an illogical finding by disbelieving Ms Le and her sponsor regarding the restaurant's website while simultaneously relying on that same website to discredit them.

Humphreys J reasoned that the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the evidence. While the Tribunal was entitled to consider inconsistencies in assessing credibility, it was not logical to disbelieve the applicants and their sponsor because they challenged the accuracy of the restaurant's website, and then proceed to rely on that same website to make adverse findings. The Tribunal's rejection of the applicants' evidence, including a contract of employment specifying Ms Le was a cook, without adequate justification, constituted a jurisdictional error. The court noted the incongruity of the Tribunal's finding that Ms Le was not a cook, given that a previous Federal Court decision had referred to her as a cook by profession and that she had initially come to Australia on that basis.

Consequently, the court upheld the application, quashed the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tribunal to determine the applicants' application according to law. The first respondent was also ordered to pay the applicants' costs.