Yathirajam v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

In *Yathirajam v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)*, Judge A Kelly of the Federal Circuit Court considered an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning a student visa application. The applicant sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision, which had been made upon a show cause hearing and fixed for final hearing, on grounds that were described as wholly generalised. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the eligibility criteria for a student visa, specifically concerning their status as a higher degree student, their enrolment with an eligible education provider, and their financial capacity.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had applied the wrong criteria in assessing the applicant's eligibility for a student visa, and if so, whether this constituted a jurisdictional error or a mere error of law. The Court was required to determine if any such error was manifest, causative of the Tribunal's decision, or if it could not have affected the outcome of the review. The Court's analysis centred on the distinction between jurisdictional error and other errors of law, particularly in the context of the privative clause provisions within Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Court reasoned that while the Federal Circuit Court has jurisdiction to review migration decisions, including the power to issue writs such as certiorari, this power is generally limited to cases of jurisdictional error. Drawing on established High Court authority, the Court explained that an error of law will only amount to jurisdictional error if it materially causes the decision-maker to exceed or fail to exercise their jurisdiction. This occurs when an error leads the tribunal to address the wrong issue, ask the wrong question, disregard relevant material, consider irrelevant material, or make a mistaken finding or conclusion, thereby affecting the exercise of its power. In this instance, the Court found that there was no jurisdictional error and that any error of law identified was immaterial and could not have affected the outcome of the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the application was dismissed.