DGI19 v Minister for Home Affairs

In the case of DGI19 v Minister for Home Affairs, the applicant, a national of Sierra Leone, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of his visa under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant's mother had been granted a Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) Woman at Risk (Subclass 204) visa. The applicant argued that returning him to Sierra Leone would breach Australia's non-refoulement obligations under international law. The Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation decision, stating that it was unnecessary to determine whether non-refoulement obligations were owed as the applicant was able to make a valid application for a protection visa.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Minister’s decision was affected by any of the misunderstandings alleged by the applicant and whether the Minister failed to give genuine consideration to matters raised by the applicant. The applicant claimed that the Minister misunderstood the nature and scope of the applicant's claims and their consideration in a protection visa application. He also argued that the Minister failed to genuinely consider the potential consequences of not revoking the cancellation decision, including the risk of serious harm to the applicant if returned to Sierra Leone.

The court found that the Minister did not genuinely consider the applicant's claims and the potential consequences of not revoking the cancellation decision. The court held that the Minister's decision was flawed because he did not properly consider the applicant's submissions and evidence, particularly the risk of serious harm if returned to Sierra Leone and the breach of non-refoulement obligations. The court set aside the Minister's decision not to revoke the cancellation decision and directed the Minister to determine the applicant's application for revocation according to law.

The court ordered that the decision of the Minister made on 13 August 2018 not to revoke the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa be set aside. The respondent was directed to determine the applicant’s application for revocation of the decision to cancel his visa pursuant to section 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) according to law. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding, subject to the possibility of variation upon notice.