MOUSSA v Minister for Immigration

In *Moussa v Minister for Immigration*, Judge Manousaridis of the Federal Circuit Court considered an application for review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal. The applicant sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision regarding his eligibility for a visa, alleging jurisdictional error.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error by referencing an incorrect expiry date for a sponsorship bar, and whether a specific regulation, Regulation 856.213(c), constituted an invalid exercise of power under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to its alleged conflict with the *Age Discrimination Act 2004* (Cth). The applicant argued that the Tribunal's finding that he did not meet Regulation 856.213(c) due to his age failed to consider the validity of the regulation itself in light of the *Age Discrimination Act*.

His Honour found that the Tribunal's reference to the sponsorship bar expiring on 14 June 2014, rather than 14 June 2017, was a typographical error and, by itself, did not constitute a jurisdictional error. The Court noted that such errors are best acknowledged rather than exploited, and that any doubt regarding the sponsorship bar's duration should be resolved against the applicant, who bore the onus of proving jurisdictional error. Furthermore, even if the bar had expired on 14 June 2014, the Tribunal made no error in deciding the application on 2 June 2014, as there was no evidence the applicant had requested a delay. Regarding the validity of Regulation 856.213(c), the Court assumed, without accepting, that the making of a regulation could contravene the *Age Discrimination Act*. However, it reasoned that the making of the regulation would fall under the administration of the Act as per section 43(1)(a) of the *Age Discrimination Act*, meaning it would not be unlawful under Part 4 of that Act.

Consequently, both grounds of the application failed. The Court also noted that even if Ground 2 had been made out, the application would still have been dismissed because the applicant's failure to satisfy Regulation 856.221 was an independent condition for visa grant. The application was therefore dismissed.