Patel (Migration)

The applicant, Mr. Patel, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal concerning his application for a Temporary Activity (Class GG) visa, Subclass 408. The core of the dispute revolved around the Tribunal's determination that a hearing was not necessary to decide Mr. Patel's application, despite the provision of a national police certificate.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit Court was whether the Migration Review Tribunal erred in law by failing to hold a hearing when it had the applicant's criminal history statement, and whether its decision to remit the application for reconsideration was appropriate. The court was required to consider the implications of the Tribunal's reliance on section 360(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in dispensing with a hearing.

Justice Sheargold found that the Tribunal's decision to proceed without a hearing, based on its ability to find in favour of the applicant on the existing material, was not an error of law. The Tribunal correctly identified that under section 360(2)(a), it could make a decision without a hearing if it was satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for the visa. The Tribunal's subsequent remittal of the application for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant met the specified criteria under Regulation 2.03AA(2)(a) and clause 408.216(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, was therefore a valid exercise of its powers.