Azt15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The case of Azt15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection involved the appellant, who had been convicted of sexual offences against his ex-de facto partner and step-daughter, appealing against the decision of the Federal Court to dismiss his application for a protection visa. The appellant had his permanent residency visa cancelled under sections 501 and 501A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and he feared harm if he returned to Malta due to his status as a sex offender. The legal issues in this case centred on whether the Refugee Review Tribunal had erred in its decision-making process by not considering mandatory relevant information, specifically the appellant's claim that Malta would not provide state protection due to its reluctance to issue him a travel document, and his potential inability to find employment and homelessness in Malta.

The court examined the appellant's claims and found that the Tribunal's decision to not accept that Malta would deny state protection was based on sound reasoning, considering the independence of Malta's judiciary, a functioning police force, a constitution which precluded discrimination, and statements by Maltese government officials about reintegrating sex offenders into society. The court also found the Tribunal's reasoning on the appellant's ability to find employment and avoid homelessness to be reasonable, given the appellant's age, language skills, work experience, and the fact that most employers in Malta did not require a police clearance certificate. The court held that the primary judge did not err in dismissing the appellant's fifth ground of appeal, which concerned the Tribunal's failure to consider mandatory relevant information.

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs. The Federal Court Rules 2011, specifically Rule 39.32, governs the entry of orders in this case.