Tran v Minister for Immigration & Anor

This matter concerned an application by Mr Tran for remedies under s 476 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) following a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision to refuse Mr Tran a Prospective Marriage (Temporary) visa. The core of Mr Tran's claim was that the Tribunal had made a jurisdictional error by applying arbitrary standards of conduct when assessing whether he and Ms Nguyen had a genuine intention to marry and to live together as spouses. He also contended that, irrespective of whether arbitrary standards were applied, the Tribunal's findings were legally unreasonable.

The court was required to determine two primary questions. First, did the Tribunal rely on unstated, assumed generalisations or standards of conduct when making its findings regarding the genuineness of the parties' intentions? Second, if it did, was there an evidential, rational, or reasonable foundation for those assumed facts or standards? Mr Tran argued that such reliance, if implied from the Tribunal's inferences, could constitute jurisdictional error, drawing an analogy to cases where the Tribunal had imposed arbitrary standards of knowledge regarding religion or political activity.

The court considered Mr Tran's submission that the Tribunal applied arbitrary standards of conduct, including expectations that couples planning a wedding would discuss celebrants, ceremonies, and honeymoons; that parties intending to live together would discuss plans for a child's education; that couples planning a child, where the female partner is nearing the end of her childbearing age, would discuss this in the context of her age; and that an Australian citizen engaged to a person overseas would visit more than once over two years if financially able. Mr Tran contended these standards were arbitrary as they were not necessarily indicative of a genuine intention to marry or live together, and that parties might reasonably defer such discussions or travel arrangements. The court also considered the alternative claim that the Tribunal's findings were, in any event, legally unreasonable.

The application was dismissed, and Mr Tran was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs in the amount of $7,206.