Lhamo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1167

Lhamo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1167

The appeal failed because the Tribunal did not misconstrue PIC 4020. It identified and applied the Trivedi requirement of purposeful falsity, and it was open to find that the appellants' negative answer about previous visa refusals was purposely false. The relevant statutory question was not whether the false information was determinative of the visa application, but whether it was relevant to criteria the Minister may consider. The impugned answer was plainly relevant to cl 500.212, including the applicant's immigration history and genuine temporary stay assessment. No jurisdictional error was shown, and the primary judge did not err in dismissing the judicial review application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Judicial Review Application / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $7,241.
Legal Topics
['student Visa Subclass 500' 'public Interest Criterion 4020' 'false or Misleading Information in a Material Particular' 'jurisdictional Error' 'costs']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['student Visa Subclass 500' 'public Interest Criterion 4020' 'false or Misleading Information in a Material Particular' 'jurisdictional Error' 'costs']

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 Dismissal of Judicial Review Application / Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia From the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Federal Circuit and Family Court erred in failing to find that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal misconstrued subclause 4020(1) of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).' 'Whether the impugned answer stating that neither appellant had previously had a visa application refused was information that was false or misleading in a material particular for PIC 4020.' 'Whether the Tribunal was required to determine that the false information was material to the visa application, or only that it was relevant to criteria the Minister may consider, including cl 500.212.' "Whether the appellants' submissions about negligence, misunderstanding and personal hardship disclosed reviewable error rather than an impermissible merits challenge."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Tribunal did not misconstrue PIC 4020. It identified and applied the Trivedi requirement of purposeful falsity, and it was open to find that the appellants' negative answer about previous visa refusals was purposely false. The relevant statutory question was not whether the false information was determinative of the visa application, but whether it was relevant to criteria the Minister may consider. The impugned answer was plainly relevant to cl 500.212, including the applicant's immigration history and genuine temporary stay assessment. No jurisdictional error was shown, and the primary judge did not err in dismissing the judicial review application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; appellants ordered to pay the first respondent's costs fixed at $7,241.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellants are to pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $7,241."]