CZA19 v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor; DBD24 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor; DBD24 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor

The applicants, CZA19 and DBD24, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs concerning their immigration status. The proceedings were heard by the High Court of Australia, presided over by Gageler CJ. The core of the dispute involved the lawfulness of the Minister's decisions to refuse to revoke certain adverse security assessments made under section 503A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The central legal question before the Court was whether the Minister, in exercising the power under section 503A(3) of the *Migration Act* to refuse to revoke an adverse security assessment, was required to afford the non-citizen procedural fairness. This question arose in circumstances where the adverse security assessment had been made by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Minister had relied on that assessment in making a decision about the non-citizen's immigration status.

Gageler CJ held that the Minister's power to refuse to revoke an adverse security assessment under section 503A(3) was not a power that attracted the obligation to afford procedural fairness to the non-citizen. His Honour reasoned that the power was not one that affected the rights, interests, or legitimate expectations of the non-citizen in a manner that would ordinarily attract such an obligation. Instead, the power was directed towards the executive government's responsibility for national security, and the assessment itself was a determination made by ASIO, not the Minister. The Minister's role was to consider whether to revoke that assessment, a decision that did not involve a merits review of the original assessment but rather a consideration of whether the circumstances warranted its revocation. The Court therefore found that the Minister's decision-making process in this context did not necessitate procedural fairness being afforded to the applicants.