A successful High Court challenge (Plaintiff M27/2025 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCA 40) handled by Kindra Migration Lawyers (formerly WLW Migration Lawyers) Zac Bright (Associate) and James Wardlaw (Partner) is a clear reminder that departmental decision-makers must genuinely consider all information an applicant provides, even if it is not in English.
The Facts of the Case
Our client applied for a Protection visa (subclass 866), providing documents that included untranslated Mandarin characters. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration (“the Minister”) refused the application, explicitly stating in their reasons that because the documents were not translated, they “will not be included as part of this assessment.”
The refusal notification was not seen by our client until after the strict time limit for merits review at the Administrative Review Tribunal had expired. This meant the High Court first had to grant an extension of time, which it did, finding it was in the interests of justice for the case to be heard.
The High Court's Decision
The High Court unanimously found that the delegate’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error and must be quashed. This means that the Minister must redecide the case and make a new decision on the application.
The Court identified that s 54 of the Migration Act 1958 places a mandatory obligation on a decision-maker to “have regard to all the information in the application.” This includes all documents, whether they are in English or not.
The High Court drew a critical distinction:
- It would have been lawful for the delegate to examine the untranslated documents and give them “minimal weight” (perhaps noting they were unpersuasive without a certified translation).
- However, it was not lawful for the delegate to treat the evidence as “non-existent” and refuse to consider it at all.
By refusing to even look at the documents, the delegate failed to perform their statutory duty. The decision was therefore invalid, and the Court ordered the Minister to determine the application again according to law.
What This Outcome Means
This case serves as a powerful reminder that the Department cannot simply put evidence in the “too hard” basket.
The key legal takeaway is that a decision-maker must engage with all the evidence before them. While they have discretion in how much weight they give that evidence, they do not have the discretion to ignore it completely. It reinforces that every applicant has the right to have their entire case considered by the person deciding their fate.
This outcome is particularly important for applicants who may have missed their deadline to appeal to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). As seen in this matter, our client was out of time. However, because there was clear evidence that the delegate had failed to consider the submitted documents, the High Court was willing to grant an extension of time. This shows that even if a deadline is missed, a pathway to review may still exist if the original decision was infected by a serious jurisdictional error.
For the full text of the judgement see here: Plaintiff M27/2025 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs | High Court of Australia
If you have received a visa refusal and are concerned that the decision-maker failed to consider your evidence or treated you unfairly, you may have grounds for a review. Contact Kindra Migration Lawyers for a consultation.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.