Babar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 38

Babar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 38

The Tribunal erred by applying the PAM3 policy to refuse the visa on grounds not authorised by the Migration Regulations, failing to address whether sponsorship was 'approved' by the Minister as required. This constituted jurisdictional error, and the error was material as it denied the applicant the possibility of a successful outcome.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court to Federal Court of Australia Full Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['partner Visa Sponsorship Requirements' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'interpretation of Migration Regulations' 'tribunal Powers and Error']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['partner Visa Sponsorship Requirements' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'interpretation of Migration Regulations' 'tribunal Powers and 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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Circuit Court to Federal Court of Australia Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred by applying the PAM3 policy to impose sponsorship requirements not authorised by the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)' "Whether the Tribunal addressed the correct question under the Migration Regulations in determining 'sponsorship' and 'Ministerial approval'" "Materiality of Tribunal's error under the SZMTA test"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred by applying the PAM3 policy to refuse the visa on grounds not authorised by the Migration Regulations, failing to address whether sponsorship was 'approved' by the Minister as required. This constituted jurisdictional error, and the error was material as it denied the applicant the possibility of a successful outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The orders of the Federal Circuit Court made on 27 August 2019 be set aside.' 'An order in the nature of certiorari be made to quash the decision of the second respondent dated 19 November 2015.' 'An order in the nature of mandamus be made remitting the matter to the second respondent to...