SZVCL v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, SZVCL, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (Tribunal) which affirmed the delegate of the Minister for Immigration's refusal to grant the visa applicants a Visitor (Class FA) visa. The central dispute concerned whether the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by concluding it was not satisfied that the visa applicants genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia, and whether this conclusion was based on evidence lacking factual support.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in its assessment of the visa applicants' genuine intention to remain temporarily in Australia. Specifically, the court considered whether the Tribunal relied on a fact for which there was no evidence, and whether such a fact constituted a jurisdictional fact. The court also examined the scope of the "no evidence" ground of jurisdictional error, particularly in relation to jurisdictional facts, and whether the Tribunal's consideration of certain matters, such as a parent's property purchase in Australia, previous visa applications, and a parent's immigration history, was reasonably open to it. Further issues included whether the Tribunal considered the wife's claim separately, misunderstood the son's mother's claim, or mistakenly attributed evidence given by the father to the son.

The court found no jurisdictional error. In relation to the interpretation of "information" under section 359A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the court adopted the principle that such information must be evidentiary material or documentation that the Tribunal provisionally considers to be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. This means the information must be capable of contradicting or undermining an essential element of the applicant's claim, either on its own or in combination with other evidence. The court determined that the son's income in China was not "information" within the meaning of section 359A(1) because it was relied upon by the applicant to support their case, rather than to undermine it. The court's reasoning indicated that the Tribunal's consideration of the various factual circumstances did not, in itself, constitute a jurisdictional error.