Saleem v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)

The matter before the Court is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a visa. The applicant, Saleem, argued that the AAT made a jurisdictional error and failed to consider all aspects of the appeal, including the exceptional circumstances that were beyond his control, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. The Court was required to determine whether the AAT's decision contained any jurisdictional errors or procedural unfairness that would warrant overturning the decision.

In examining the AAT's decision, the Court found that the AAT correctly identified that the applicant did not have an approved nomination as required by the Migration Regulations. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had failed to respond to a s 359A letter, which informed him that his failure to respond may result in a loss of his right to attend a hearing. The Court found that the AAT did not make a jurisdictional error in affirming the delegate's decision. Regarding the applicant's argument that the AAT failed to consider all aspects of the appeal, the Court held that the AAT had considered the applicant's circumstances and found that they did not excuse the failure to meet the visa grant criteria. The Court held that the AAT's decision was procedurally fair and did not breach the principles of natural justice.

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review and affirmed the AAT's decision to affirm the delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant a visa. The Court found that the AAT had correctly applied the relevant legislation and did not make any jurisdictional errors or procedural unfairness. The Court held that the applicant's failure to respond to the s 359A letter and his failure to meet the visa grant criteria were sufficient grounds for the AAT to affirm the delegate's decision.

No orders for costs were made.