Lo v Minister for Immigration

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Lo, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning their application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the AAT had correctly interpreted and applied the provisions of clause 836.213 of Schedule 2 to the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), and whether the first applicant had been afforded a fair opportunity to present their case. The matter came before Judge Humphreys in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the AAT had misconstrued and misapplied clause 836.213 of the Migration Regulations, whether the AAT had denied the first applicant a meaningful and fair opportunity to present arguments and evidence, and whether the AAT had failed to comply with the requirements of section 360 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Furthermore, the court considered whether the AAT had committed jurisdictional error due to an invalid notification purportedly made under section 376 of the Migration Act, or alternatively, due to a denial of procedural fairness.

Judge Humphreys found that no jurisdictional error had been made out. The reasoning focused on the AAT's application of the relevant regulatory provisions and its conduct in relation to procedural fairness. The court concluded that the AAT had not erred in its interpretation or application of clause 836.213, nor had it denied the applicants a fair opportunity to present their case. The notification procedures under section 376 were also found to be valid, and consequently, no jurisdictional error arose from that aspect.

The application for judicial review was therefore dismissed.