CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2)

The case of CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) involved the applicant, CGX20, who had sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The Tribunal had affirmed a decision by a delegate of the Minister not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa. The applicant contended that the Tribunal had erred in its consideration of the impact on members of the Australian community, including victims, of a decision not to revoke the visa cancellation, and whether this amounted to an irrelevant consideration. The applicant further argued that the Tribunal's findings on the matter were unreasonable, illogical, or irrational.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal erred by taking into account an irrelevant consideration and whether the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable, illogical, or irrational. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Tribunal had engaged in double counting by considering the same types of matters under primary consideration and other considerations, and if the Tribunal's findings on the impact on the victims and the best interests of the children were irrational. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether it was unreasonable for the Tribunal to consider the unfair conduct of the applicant's ex-wife as a reason why the best interests of the children were not served by the revocation of the visa cancellation.

The court found that the Tribunal had correctly considered the impact on the victims by focusing on what would happen if the visa cancellation decision was revoked rather than by reference to the impact of the decision not to revoke. However, the applicant's complaint was that the Tribunal's approach led to a form of double counting of matters that had already been counted against his request for reconsideration under the primary consideration. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was not unreasonable, illogical, or irrational. The court found that the Tribunal's observation that the victim would not be affected if the applicant remained in Australia was not entirely correct, as it is not uncommon for the victim of a crime to be a family member or someone with a close association with the offender. The court also found that the Tribunal's findings on the best interests of the children were not unreasonable or irrational. The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the first respondent to be assessed if not agreed.