SINGH v Minister for Immigration

Singh (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration (the respondent) to refuse to grant him a visa. The applicant was a citizen of India and had applied for a partner visa (subclass 820) on the basis of his relationship with an Australian citizen. The Minister's delegate had refused the visa application, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a genuine and continuing relationship. The applicant sought to challenge this decision in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the delegate's decision to refuse the partner visa was affected by jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant argued that the delegate failed to properly consider all relevant evidence presented in support of his relationship, thereby failing to undertake a proper assessment of the genuineness and continuing nature of the relationship as required by the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The applicant contended that this failure amounted to an error of law, rendering the decision invalid.

Judge Lucev considered the evidence before the delegate and the delegate's reasons for decision. His Honour found that the delegate had indeed failed to adequately consider significant portions of the evidence, including statutory declarations from friends and family attesting to the relationship's authenticity, and documentary evidence such as joint bank statements and travel itineraries. The court applied the principle that a decision-maker must genuinely consider all relevant evidence placed before them. Where a delegate fails to do so, and this failure is material to the outcome, it constitutes a jurisdictional error. The court concluded that the delegate's assessment was therefore flawed.

The court ordered that the decision of the delegate be set aside and remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.