Meimban (Migration)

The applicant, Meimban, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal concerning an application for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa, Subclass 408. The dispute arose from the Tribunal's determination that a hearing was not necessary to decide the application, despite the applicant providing a digital national police certificate as evidence of their criminal history.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal erred in law by failing to hold a hearing when it was presented with evidence of the applicant's criminal history, which could have impacted the assessment of Public Interest Criterion 4001 and clause 408.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The court was required to consider if the Tribunal's reliance on section 360(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to dispense with a hearing was appropriate in these circumstances.

The court reasoned that while section 360(2)(a) permits the Tribunal to make a decision without a hearing if it can find in favour of the applicant based on the material before it, this provision must be applied cautiously, particularly when adverse information, such as a criminal history, is present. The Tribunal's decision to proceed without a hearing, despite the potential implications of the police certificate, was found to be an error of law. Consequently, the court remitted the application for reconsideration, directing that the applicant be found to meet the specified criteria for the Subclass 408 visa.