Zhang v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, Mr. Zhang, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration to refuse his significant investor visa application. The refusal was based on the applicant's alleged failure to satisfy Public Interest Criterion 4020. The central dispute concerned whether the decision-maker had failed to perform her statutory task by not adequately assessing and considering the evidence presented, and whether this constituted jurisdictional error.

The court was required to determine whether the decision-maker had given "proper, genuine and realistic" consideration to the applicant's evidence, specifically a notarial certificate. The applicant argued that merely referencing the certificate in the decision record, without analysis or specific findings in the reasons for decision, amounted to a failure to properly consider it. The court also considered whether the decision-maker had a less onerous obligation in providing reasons compared to a tribunal, and whether the scope of the evidence before the delegate limited her duty to inquire.

Justice Barnes applied the principles established in *Islam v Cash* and *Williams v Minister for the Environment and Heritage*, which hold that mere advertence to a consideration without analysis is insufficient. A decision-maker must give genuine and realistic consideration to relevant matters. The court noted the applicant's submission that the delegate's failure to make express findings on the notarial certificate, despite its presence in the documentation, indicated an error. The court also considered the respondent's argument that the delegate's available information was limited, but acknowledged that the delegate had been provided with the notarial certificate, a letter from the applicant, and an explanation regarding the certificate's source.

The court found that the delegate had failed to give proper, genuine, and realistic consideration to the notarial certificate. The delegate's reasons did not contain any analysis of the certificate, nor did they make specific findings in relation to it. This failure to assess and consider the evidence constituted a jurisdictional error. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of the Minister and remitted the matter to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.