FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CVDQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FCA 1101
File number: NSD 626 of 2025 Judgment of: LEE J Date of judgment: 9 September 2025 Catchwords: MIGRATION – where the applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the second respondent, which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to revoke pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the cancellation of the applicant’s Special Category (TY-444) visa – Direction No. 110 – where the applicant advances two grounds of judicial review – where the relevant law including recent authority is considered – where each ground of review is addressed in turn – where both grounds of review fail – application dismissed with costs – orders made Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 499, 501, 501(3A), 501CA, 501CA(4) Cases cited: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v HSRN [2023] FCAFC 68; (2023) 297 FCR 662
Plaintiff S22-2025 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCA 36
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 35 Date of last submissions: 5 September 2025 Date of hearing: 18 August 2025 Counsel for the applicant: Mr P Berg Solicitor for the applicant: SouthWest Migration and Legal Services Counsel for the first respondent: Mr G Johnson Solicitor for the first respondent: Australian Government Solicitor ORDERS
NSD 626 of 2025 BETWEEN: CVDQ
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 SEPTEMBER 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The proceedings be dismissed with costs, including the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appearance at the hearing on 1 August 2025 and the costs thrown away by the amendment to the application, in the form filed on 15 August 2025.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LEE J:
A INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (Tribunal), which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) not to revoke pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) the cancellation of the applicant’s Special Category (TY-444) visa. It requires an extension of time, which was only opposed on the basis that the grounds of review identified below do not reveal a case of sufficient merit that would warrant an extension. The delay was short and there is no real reason why an extension ought not be granted.
At the hearing, as oral argument proceeded, the application appeared to raise a matter of some interest relating to “Direction no. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA” (Direction). As is well-known, the…
Continue reading CVDQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (N...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- CVDQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (No 2) [2025] FCA 1101
- Case
- [2025] FCA 1101
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined each ground of judicial review, considering the relevant law and recent authority. The first ground challenged the Tribunal's finding of a "positive likelihood" that the applicant would have a close association with AN, which was deemed a significant factor in the risk of reoffending. The court found that the Tribunal had a probative basis for its finding, considering the extensive history of domestic violence and the applicant's continued relationship with AN despite documented abuse. The second ground of review questioned the Tribunal's assessment of the applicant's likelihood to reoffend if she remained in Australia. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was supported by evidence of the applicant's history of drug use, involvement in criminal activities, and the potential influence of AN on her future behavior.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. The applicant's arguments did not provide sufficient grounds to overturn the Tribunal's findings. The court ordered that the proceedings be dismissed with costs, including the costs of the first respondent's appearance at the hearing and the costs thrown away by the amendment to the application. This decision underscores the importance of a well-supported and reasoned decision-making process in migration cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The proceedings be dismissed with costs, including the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appearance at the hearing on 1 August 2025 and the costs thrown away by the amendment to the application, in the form filed on 15 August 2025.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
In the absence of such material, it is said the Tribunal’s finding (at [58] extracted above) “lacked an evident and intelligible basis”. Put another way, it is said the Tribunal did not have a probative basis for its finding of a “positive likelihood” that the applicant would have a close association with AN, which was a factor considered as adding significantly to the risk that the applicant might reoffend.Consideration The applicant’s argument does not withstand any scrutiny. It does not do justice as to how the Tribunal dealt with this aspect of its consideration at all. To explain why this is so, it is unfortunately necessary to set out the Tribunal’s reasoning at some length, including as to the duration and nature of the relationship between the applicant and AN. The Tribunal noted (at TR [55]–[57]):The Applicant has been in a relationship with AN for 22 years and they have seven children together. NSW Justice Health file notes from May 2020 record the Applicant having resolved to leave AN. A previous attempt to leave AN and return to New Zealand was unsuccessful because AN was waiting for the Applicant when she was released from prison. The file notes record in part:[the Applicant] Having panic attacks, though not as many as she usually does at home. Describes near constant anxiety at home, anticipatory anxiety about when partner might come home.Has flashbacks about previous trauma, mostly related to her partner. States that he physical assaults her regularly, also states that he has had dealings with bikies and that at one point she was abducted because he owed them money.Also describes her partner's sister and mother tying her down and scratching her. “I try to just do what he says so I don't get hurt.”States that she uses CMA [methylamphetamine] to cope with distress at home. States that she has now resolved to leave him.Reports that last time in·custody she felt the same way though, that SAPOs had assisted her in getting a new passport (he cut hers' up so she couldn't leave). However, when she left prison, someone had obviously told him she was being released because he was waiting for her.States that if she called her mother, she would come to Aus and retrieve her kids, and take them back to NZ.She states that she now realises she should tell her parents about the extent of the DV in her relationship, and go to NZ where they will be able to protect her.Discussed that her main concern is the abusive relationship and that medication is unlikely to help unless she makes changes.However, also discussed that starting an antidepressant might be helpful to assist with anxiety and mood problems associated with PTSO, States that her partner coerced her to break the law with the threat of violence. States that he laughed at her when she asked why.Is wondering whether to tell her lawyer about this.In cross-examination on sentence in September 2021, the Applicant told the District Court that staying away from AN was one factor that would prevent her from reoffending. Upon her release into the community in 2024, the Applicant returned to live with AN and their Australian-based children. While acknowledging their relationship has been dysfunctional and violent at times, the Applicant maintains AN was not violent towards her after she was released from prison in 2024. She gave evidence that despite her well documented fears of AN, she returned to living with him because she wanted to be near her children. The Applicant gave evidence that AN had changed while she was in prison. He had been to anger management and reduced his alcohol consumption, which she claims is closely linked to his abusive behaviour. At the hearing the Applicant confirmed that AN had a history of being physically violent towards her, was involved in her offending and had on occasion forced her to use ice. However, she said they were no longer in an intimate relationship, and that both she and AN had entered new relationships while she was imprisoned. Should she remain in Australia, the Applicant gave evidence that she plans to live separately from AN. She anticipates she would be able to find her own accommodation with the support of Ms Bartlett and her friend Shasta Dale. Ms Bartlett and Ms Dale have committed to supporting the Applicant should she return to the community.