Haque v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

INTRODUCTION 1 The applicant has applied to the Court under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") for review of a judicially reviewable decision of the Migration Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). On 18 April 2001 the Tribunal decided to affirm a decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse to grant to the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa. 2 The Tribunal made its decision of 18 April 2001 without conducting a hearing. The only ground of review ultimately relied on by the applicant was that a procedure that was required by the Act to be observed in connection with the making of the decision was not observed (s 476(1)(a) of the Act). The applicant submitted that the Tribunal was under a statutory obligation to "invite the applicant to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review" (subs 360(1) of the Act). The respondent accepts that the Tribunal did not invite the applicant to appear before it. 3 For the reasons which are set out below, I have concluded that, in the circumstances which happened, the Tribunal was not under an obligation to invite the applicant to appear before it. As the only ground upon which the applicant sought review of the decision of the Tribunal has not been established, the decision of the Tribunal must be affirmed.

FACTS 4 On 5 June 2000 the Tribunal received a hand written document from the applicant which requested the Tribunal to amend its address details for service of documents to show the address of his migration agent (wrongly described in the document as the applicant's solicitor). The Tribunal updated its records accordingly. 5 By letter dated 10 November 2000 addressed to the applicant at his residential address, but copied to his migration agent, the Tribunal invited the applicant to give to it certain additional information. Under cover of a letter dated 4 December 2000 the applicant's migration agent provided a number of documents to the Tribunal. 6 By letter dated 25 January 2001, addressed to the applicant care of his migration agent, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide it with further information. The letter asked that the information be provided within twenty-eight days of the date of the letter, and advised that a request could be made, within that time limit, for an extension of time. Under cover of a letter dated 15 March 2001 the applicant provided additional documents to the Tribunal. The letter of 15 March 2001 advised the Tribunal that the applicant had only been notified on 14 March 2001 of the Tribunal's letter of 25 January 2001. A handwritten note on the letter of 15 March 2001 requested the Tribunal to send letters or documents to the applicant's home address. 7 As is mentioned above, the Tribunal made its decision affirming the decision not to grant the applicant the visa sought by him on 18 April 2001. In its written reasons for decision the Tribunal referred to the above correspondence and noted that as no response or request for an extension of time in which to respond was received by the Tribunal by the prescribed date, the applicant was not entitled to a hearing. The Tribunal did, however, give consideration to the further information provided to it by the applicant under cover of his letter dated 15 March 2001.