BLF20 v Minister for Immigration

This matter concerned an applicant, BLF20, who sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a delegate's decision to cancel their bridging visa. The applicant had previously been granted a Humanitarian Stay visa, followed by Safe Haven Enterprise visas and associated bridging visas. However, the applicant was erroneously considered an unauthorised maritime arrival, a status that, following the decision in *DBB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, meant they were not eligible to apply for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. Consequently, the purported grant of the Safe Haven Enterprise visas was affected by jurisdictional error. The applicant was subsequently convicted of state criminal offences, leading to the delegate's notice to cancel and subsequent cancellation of the bridging visas.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the delegate and the Tribunal had the power to cancel the bridging visas, or if their power was limited to setting aside the erroneous decision to grant the visas. This question required the court to consider the applicable principles of invalidity and the legislative purpose of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine whether a breach of a provision was intended by the legislature to render an act invalid, and the scope and objects of the Act in relation to such powers.

The court reasoned that while a decision to grant a visa based on an invalid application might be considered invalid, such a visa is intended to have operative effect until it is cancelled in accordance with the Act. Drawing on principles from *Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v A*, the court held that the validity of a decision depends on the specific section of the Act in question and whether the legislature intended a breach to result in invalidity. The court found that the powers of the delegate and the Tribunal were not limited to merely setting aside an erroneous grant of a visa. Instead, the Tribunal was seized of the power to affirm the delegate's decision to cancel the visa, even if the initial grant was affected by jurisdictional error.

The court dismissed the applicant's further amended application.