Shrestha; Ghimire; Acharya; Hossain v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

The applicants, Shrestha, Ghimire, Acharya, and Hossain, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the second respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decisions to refuse to grant the applicants visas, which decisions were affirmed by the Tribunal. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Minister's delegate, in refusing the visa applications, had failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision as required by section 139(1) of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). This involved determining what constitutes "adequate reasons" in the context of a refusal to grant a visa, particularly where the applicant has provided information that is not accepted by the decision-maker.

The High Court held that section 139(1) of the *Migration Regulations* requires that reasons for a decision must be sufficient to enable the applicant to understand the basis of the decision and to identify grounds for seeking review. The Court reasoned that where an applicant has provided information that is not accepted, the reasons for refusal must explain why that information was not accepted or why it did not satisfy the relevant criteria. Merely stating that the information was not accepted or did not meet the criteria is insufficient. The Court found that the reasons provided in each of the applicants' cases were inadequate because they did not explain the delegate's assessment of the evidence provided by the applicants.

The High Court ordered that the appeals be allowed, the orders of the Federal Court be set aside, and that the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to each applicant be quashed. The matters were remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law.