Su v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Su, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) that affirmed the Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse her visa application. The core of the dispute concerned the applicant's alleged employment with a nominating employer, which the MRT found to be not genuine. The matter came before Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the MRT had considered irrelevant material in reaching its decision, thereby giving rise to jurisdictional error. Specifically, the applicant contended that the MRT relied on one-sided information from a site visit and placed excessive weight on the employer's poor financial position, which led it to disregard her evidence of earnings. The applicant also argued that the MRT's finding that she never commenced employment was inconsistent with other evidence it considered, suggesting a failure to carefully consider relevant information.

Judge Jarrett reasoned that the applicant's ground of review invited an impermissible review of the merits of the MRT's decision. The court noted that the MRT had provided coherent reasons for discounting various documents relied upon by the applicant, including ATO notices and PAYE payment summaries, finding them inconsistent and not indicative of actual payment given the employer's lack of records and income. The tribunal also analysed the applicant's bank statements to understand her income. The court found that the tribunal did not question the bank statements but rather sought to understand the applicant's income flow. The tribunal's consideration of information from community members and departmental officers regarding the employer's operations and the applicant's alleged non-commencement of work was found to be within its purview.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated jurisdictional error. The MRT's findings regarding the applicant's employment were based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence before it, and its approach to weighing that evidence was open to it.