Zhu v Minister for Immigration

Zhu (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) concerning his application for a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (Subclass 857) visa. The applicant contended that the MRT had made a jurisdictional error in its assessment of his visa application.

The central legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the MRT had confined its considerations too narrowly, failing to address the substantive question required by section 65(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This arose from allegations that mistranslations by an interpreter had led the MRT to consider the applicant's case according to policy set out in the Procedures Advice Manual (PAM 3) rather than the broader requirements of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

Justice Hartnett found that the MRT had indeed committed a jurisdictional error. The Tribunal's reliance on PAM 3, particularly in light of the alleged mistranslations, meant it did not properly address the question mandated by section 65(1) of the Act. Consequently, the application for judicial review was allowed, and writs were issued.