Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

In this case, the applicant, a citizen of the United Kingdom, sought a judicial review of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs' decision not to refer his application for intervention under s 351 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to the Minister. The applicant, who had been living in Australia since 1997, was refused a partner visa on 12 June 2018 and subsequently applied for review by the Migration Review Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision on 14 January 2019, and the applicant requested ministerial intervention on 11 February 2019. The Assistant Director declined to refer the matter to the Minister, and the applicant sought judicial review of that decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Assistant Director's decision to not refer the applicant's case to the Minister was legally unreasonable. The applicant argued that his case involved unique or exceptional circumstances as outlined in the Minister's guidelines, warranting referral to the Minister. The Minister contended that the Assistant Director's decision was reasonable and that the applicant's case did not meet the criteria for referral under the guidelines.

The court held that the Assistant Director's decision was reasonable and legally sound. The Assistant Director had provided five principal reasons for their decision, including the lack of evidence of support from the wider community or hardship to Australians as a result of the applicant's departure. The court noted that it was not its role to form its own view on whether the applicant had demonstrated unique or exceptional circumstances but rather to determine if the Assistant Director's evaluation or judgment was reasonable. The court found that the Assistant Director's evaluation or judgment was reasonable, and thus, the decision not to refer the applicant's case to the Minister was not legally unreasonable.

The court granted the applicant leave to amend his amended originating application and dismissed the application. The applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs, as agreed or assessed.