Demillo v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The case of Demillo v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection involved the appellant challenging the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the Minister’s delegate’s decision to cancel his visa on character grounds. The appellant argued that he was denied procedural fairness due to the AAT's refusal to grant an adjournment and to allow his child to give oral evidence. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness in two respects: firstly, by the AAT's refusal to grant an adjournment, and secondly, by the refusal to allow the appellant's child to give oral evidence under section 500(6H) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court was required to consider whether these decisions by the AAT amounted to jurisdictional error.

The court found that the AAT's refusal to grant an adjournment was not unreasonable, as the concessions made by the Minister and the additional time provided for submissions addressed the appellant's concerns. Furthermore, the court held that there was no unreasonable refusal to adjourn to allow the appellant to be represented by a solicitor, as he had ample opportunity to arrange such representation. Regarding the refusal to allow the child to give oral evidence, the court concluded that the AAT was constrained by section 500(6H) of the Act, which required a written statement to be given to the Minister. Additionally, the appellant did not specify what evidence he wished to elicit from the child, and the court found that the AAT's decision was reasonable given the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent to be taxed if not agreed.