DMH20 v Minister for Home Affairs

The appeal was brought by DMH20, an unlawful non-citizen, against the Minister for Home Affairs, seeking a declaration that it was not reasonably practicable to remove him from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future. The case revolved around the appellant's argument that there was no realistic prospect of his removal due to Malta's refusal to issue him a travel document, which would be necessary for his return to his country of nationality. The appellant contended that Malta would not accept his return at all or would only do so if he voluntarily consented to it. The primary judge dismissed the application, and DMH20 appealed to the court, which ultimately dismissed the appeal with costs.

The court was required to decide whether the primary judge erred in not distinguishing between the concepts of voluntariness and cooperation, and whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that it was unlikely that the appellant would become voluntary towards his removal. The court also had to consider whether there was any error in the primary judge's approach to the evidence and the assessment of the likelihood of the appellant's removal.

The court concluded that there was no error in the primary judge's decision. The court found that the primary judge had correctly considered the evidence and had not erred in her assessment of the likelihood of the appellant's removal. The court held that the primary judge had correctly distinguished between the concepts of voluntariness and cooperation, and that there was no basis to conclude that it was unlikely that the appellant would become voluntary towards his removal. The court also found that the primary judge had not erred in her approach to the evidence, and that there was no reason to interfere with her conclusions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs as agreed or assessed.