Rahbarinejad v MIBP

Rahbarinejad and another applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) that affirmed the refusal of their Business Skills (residence) (class DF) visa. The applicants were seeking a state or territory sponsored business owner residence visa. The MRT had found that there was no evidence that the applicants' business or businesses were operating in the two years prior to their visa application.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit Court was whether the MRT had committed jurisdictional error by failing to adequately investigate the totality of the factual scenario presented to it. Specifically, the court considered whether the MRT had unduly focused on the absence of a business activity statement for a particular period and failed to consider other evidence from which it could have drawn inferences about the operation of the applicants' businesses.

His Honour Judge Wilson found that the MRT had indeed committed jurisdictional error. The Tribunal had failed to consider a relevant consideration by not drawing inferences from the evidence before it, which included financial statements and other documents that could have indicated business operations. The court held that the MRT's focus on the lack of a specific document (the business activity statement) was an error of law, as it prevented a proper consideration of the overall factual matrix.

Consequently, the court issued constitutional writs, quashing the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal and remitting the matter to the MRT for redetermination according to law.