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

This matter concerned an application by the first applicant, Mr Sharma, and the second applicant, for judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal had affirmed the cancellation of the first applicant's Subclass 175 Skilled Independent Visa, which had been initially cancelled by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute centred on whether the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence and complied with its statutory obligations.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal failed to comply with its obligations under section 359A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) by not providing adequate particulars of inconsistencies in the evidence, whether the Tribunal failed to engage genuinely with the applicant's submissions, and whether the Tribunal's adverse findings were open to it on the evidence.

Justice Street found that the Tribunal had complied with section 359A of the *Migration Act* by providing a letter detailing the inconsistencies in the applicant's claimed employment as a cook with the Momotarou Restaurant, particularly in light of evidence suggesting full-time employment elsewhere. The Tribunal had afforded the applicant an extension of time to respond to this information, which was then considered. The Tribunal's reasoning demonstrated a genuine intellectual engagement with the applicant's submissions, including the evidence of Mr Chaudhary, whom the Tribunal found to be an unreliable witness due to inconsistencies in his evidence. The Tribunal was entitled to prefer other evidence, such as that relating to the applicant's employment with Asia Pharmaceuticals, and its adverse findings regarding the applicant's compliance with section 101(b) of the Act were open to it on the evidence before it. Consequently, no jurisdictional error was established.

The application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $5,600.00.