CJO23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The case of CJO23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs involved a Sudanese citizen who had been in Australia since the age of 14. The applicant, who had been granted a Global Special Humanitarian visa, faced mandatory visa cancellation following a conviction for sexual penetration without consent. The delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation, a decision affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought judicial review, arguing that the Tribunal had failed to give considerable weight to the fact that he had been ordinarily resident in Australia since his formative years.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the direction in paragraph 8.3 of Direction 99 when considering the applicant’s ties to Australia. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Tribunal had erred in failing to give considerable weight to the applicant’s long-term residency in Australia and the strength of his ties to the country. The applicant argued that the Tribunal’s failure to properly consider these factors rendered the decision unreasonable, illogical, or irrational.

The court found that the Tribunal had indeed failed to give considerable weight to the applicant’s long-term residency and ties to Australia as required by Direction 99. The court concluded that the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the applicant’s ties to Australia, particularly by not sufficiently acknowledging the considerable weight that should be given to the fact that he had been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since his formative years. The court held that this error rendered the Tribunal’s decision unreasonable.

Consequently, the Federal Court quashed the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration according to law. The Minister was also ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding.