BLBY v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The case of BLBY v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs involved an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the delegate's decision to refuse to revoke the applicant's visa cancellation pursuant to section 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant, previously the holder of a protection visa, had committed child sexual offences and was sentenced to more than 12 months imprisonment. The AAT was required to apply Direction 90 in its consideration of the matter. The applicant made representations in support of the request to revoke the visa cancellation and alleged procedural unfairness and failure to undertake the deliberative task by reason of errors in interpretation, among other things.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the AAT had made a jurisdictional error in its interpretation of the evidence provided by the applicant and whether there was any failure to undertake the deliberative task as required by Direction 90. The court considered the interpretation of the evidence provided by the applicant and the alleged errors in interpretation. It also examined the difference between evaluating the significance of the representations made by the applicant and considering the mandatory considerations outlined in Direction 90. The court also considered the recent decision in Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17.

The court found that there was no jurisdictional error in the AAT's interpretation of the evidence provided by the applicant. It held that the AAT had appropriately evaluated the significance of the representations made by the applicant and had considered the mandatory considerations outlined in Direction 90. The court held that the AAT's decision was not legally unreasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review. The application to amend the originating application was allowed.

Finally, the court ordered that leave be granted to amend the originating application in terms of the further amended originating application being annexure SR-3 to the affidavit of Selvadurai Raveendran affirmed 25 January 2023. The application for review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the application such costs to be assessed by a registrar on a lump sum basis if not agreed.