Prajapati v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Prajapati, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT). The core of the dispute concerned whether the MRT had constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction and whether it had properly considered the evidence before it, specifically in light of Schedule 5A.502 of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) and section 359A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant also alleged a denial of procedural fairness. The matter came before Judge Nicholls in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the MRT had constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction by failing to have regard to relevant evidence as required by the *Migration Regulations*, and whether the MRT's decision-making process complied with the procedural fairness obligations mandated by the *Migration Act*. The Court was therefore required to determine if the MRT's actions constituted a jurisdictional error.

Judge Nicholls found that the MRT had indeed constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction. The reasoning focused on the Tribunal's failure to adequately consider crucial evidence presented by the applicant, which was relevant to the assessment under Schedule 5A.502. This failure meant the Tribunal did not properly engage with the evidence before it, thereby breaching its statutory obligations and denying the applicant procedural fairness. The Court concluded that this amounted to a jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the Court ordered that a writ of certiorari issue to quash the MRT's decision of 5 September 2013. Furthermore, a writ of mandamus was ordered, compelling the MRT to reconsider the applicant's application in accordance with the law.