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

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning a Partner (Temporary) (Class UK) (Subclass 820) visa. The core of the dispute involved allegations that the Tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence and contravened sections 360(1) and 359(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), thereby committing a jurisdictional error.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had failed to consider relevant evidence, specifically regarding the applicant's reasons for remaining in Australia unlawfully and the potential financial hardship if required to apply for a visa offshore. The court was also required to determine if the Tribunal's decision-making process constituted a jurisdictional error by failing to comply with the procedural requirements of the *Migration Act*.

The court reasoned that the Tribunal had adequately engaged with the issue of why the applicant remained unlawfully in Australia, devoting several paragraphs to this discussion and ultimately rejecting the applicant's claims. The court found that the Tribunal's adverse credit findings were open to it on the evidence and were not rendered immaterial by a failure to specifically mention one piece of corroborating evidence, as these findings amounted to a complete rejection of the applicant's case. Regarding the alleged failure to address financial hardship and the need for a fee reduction, the court held that there was no requirement for the Tribunal to provide a "running commentary" on the evidence. The court was satisfied that ample evidence existed for the Tribunal to reject the submission of financial disadvantage, and the issue of fee reduction was not dispositive of the matter. Consequently, no jurisdictional error was made out.

The court ordered that the name of the First Respondent be amended to Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, and that the application be dismissed. The First Applicant was ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs, fixed at $7,100.00.