Lo v Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 895

Lo v Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 895

The appeal failed because cl 836.213 required Ms Lo to be sponsored at the time of the 2012 visa application, and the later 2018 Form signed by her mother could not satisfy that criterion or substitute a different sponsorship. The Tribunal's unchallenged finding that the father did not understand the sponsorship obligations when he signed the 2012 form meant the application did not satisfy cl 836.213, and the sponsorship was not in force for cl 836.227. Although the s 376 certificate was invalid because the webform did not reveal information capable of identifying the anonymous informant, any invalidity was not material because fuller disclosure was not realistically capable of affecting...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision Refusing Constitutional Writ Relief in Respect of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Other Family (residence) (class Bu) Carer Visas / Appeal to Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['other Family (residence) (class Bu) Carer Visa' 'subclass 836 Carer Visa Sponsorship' 'capacity to Undertake Sponsorship Obligations' 'time of Application Criterion' 'section 376 Confidential Information Certificate' 'materiality of Non Disclosure' 'jurisdictional Error']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['other Family (residence) (class Bu) Carer Visa' 'subclass 836 Carer Visa Sponsorship' 'capacity to Undertake Sponsorship Obligations' 'time of Application Criterion' 'section 376 Confidential Information Certificate' 'materiality of Non Disclosure' 'jurisdictional Error']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Decision Refusing Constitutional Writ Relief in Respect of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of Other Family (residence) (class Bu) Carer Visas / Appeal to Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether cl 836.213 required a sponsor to have been nominated and to have given a sponsorship undertaking at the time of the visa application, or allowed evidence of sponsorship to be provided after the time of application.' "Whether the Form 40 dated 18 June 2018 signed by Ms Lo's mother was capable of satisfying cl 836.213." "Whether the Tribunal was required to give Ms Lo notice that her mother's signature on the 2018 Form would be treated only as support for the father's sponsorship rather than as an independent sponsorship undertaking." 'Whether the notification under s 376 dated 27 September 2017 was invalid and, if invalid, whether the invalidity was material.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because cl 836.213 required Ms Lo to be sponsored at the time of the 2012 visa application, and the later 2018 Form signed by her mother could not satisfy that criterion or substitute a different sponsorship. The Tribunal's unchallenged finding that the father did not understand the sponsorship obligations when he signed the 2012 form meant the application did not satisfy cl 836.213, and the sponsorship was not in force for cl 836.227. Although the s 376 certificate was invalid because the webform did not reveal information capable of identifying the anonymous informant, any invalidity was not material because fuller disclosure was not realistically capable of affecting...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellants pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal."]