Ayoub v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the case of Ayoub v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the appellant, Ayoub, sought to challenge the Minister's decision to cancel his visa on character grounds. The appellant argued that the Minister had failed to consider certain factors, including the risk of future harm to the Australian community if the appellant were to remain in Australia. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the risk of future harm to the Australian community was a mandatory relevant consideration when exercising the power under section 501 of the Migration Act, and whether the Minister had unreasonably departed from a previous decision of a Full Court. The appellant argued that the Minister had failed to take into account a mandatory relevant consideration, which led to an unreasonable decision.

The court found that the risk of harm to the Australian community was not a mandatory relevant consideration when exercising the power under section 501 of the Migration Act. The court noted that different views had been expressed by different Judges on this issue. While some Judges, such as Mortimer J, had concluded that the risk of harm was a mandatory relevant consideration, others, like Jessup J, disagreed. The court held that the Minister was not bound to evaluate the likelihood of a person engaging in future conduct which may cause harm, and that the power to cancel a visa under section 501(2) of the Act might validly be exercised upon the Minister taking into account no consideration other than the fact that the visa holder did not pass the character test.

The court further found that the Minister's decision was not unreasonable, as the Minister had an evident and intelligible basis for the decision. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the Minister had departed from a previous decision of a Full Court.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the respondent. The court also granted leave to further amend the Notice of Appeal.