Salama v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The appellant, a citizen of Egypt, challenged the Federal Circuit Court's decision to dismiss his appeal against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to cancel his visa. The appellant argued that the Minister's delegate wrongly considered his answer to a question about his relationship status on an online visa application form as "incorrect" under s 101 of the Migration Act. The appellant's primary contention was that his answer of "divorced" to the relationship status question was not incorrect because it referred to his divorce from his first wife, who was legally recognised under Australian law, and not his second wife, who was not. The central legal issues were whether the Tribunal erred in considering whether the appellant's answer was "incorrect" under s 101 of the Migration Act and whether the answer of "married" on the online visa application form referred to a marriage legally recognised under Australian law. The court found that the Tribunal had indeed erred. It made findings as to what was the most correct answer but did not find whether the answer was "incorrect". The court held that a finding that the answer was "at least misleading" or technically correct does not equate to a finding it is incorrect. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Federal Circuit Court were set aside. The decision of the Minister to cancel the appellant's visa was quashed, and a writ of mandamus was issued, directing the Minister to determine the appellant's application according to law.