BUL23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The case of BUL23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs involved an Indian citizen who had been in Australia since 2002 on a tourist visa, subsequently becoming an unlawful non-citizen in 2008. The applicant had been detained in immigration detention since 2017 and sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent his removal from Australia pending the determination of his request for Ministerial intervention. The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant had demonstrated a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the interlocutory injunction.

The Court found that the applicant had not established a serious question to be tried, as the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the exercise of the Minister's powers under sections 48B and 195A of the Migration Act. The Court also concluded that the balance of convenience lay against the grant of an interlocutory injunction, particularly given the statutory obligation under section 198 of the Migration Act to remove unlawful non-citizens from Australia. The Court emphasised the importance of the proper administration of the Migration Act and noted that the applicant had not demonstrated any arguable case that he was entitled to the final relief sought.

In summary, the Court rejected the applicant's application for an interlocutory injunction, finding that there was no serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the injunction. The Court's decision was based on the statutory framework governing the removal of unlawful non-citizens and the Court's limited jurisdiction in relation to certain decisions of the Minister.