Donis & Ors v Donis

The Full Federal Court of Australia, constituted by Kirby and Crennan JJ, considered an appeal concerning the interpretation and application of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and related regulations. The appeal arose from a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court, which had previously dealt with applications for judicial review brought by the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Donis, and their son, Mr. Donis Jr. The central dispute revolved around the validity of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to grant certain visas to the appellants, and the subsequent refusal to revoke those decisions.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the Minister's decisions to refuse to grant the visas were vitiated by a failure to afford procedural fairness, and whether the Minister had erred in law by failing to consider relevant considerations and by taking into account irrelevant considerations when refusing to revoke those decisions. Specifically, the court was asked to determine if the Minister's delegate had properly exercised the discretion conferred by the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) in assessing the appellants' applications and in subsequently refusing to revoke the initial adverse decisions.

In their reasoning, Kirby and Crennan JJ affirmed the principles of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making, particularly in the context of migration law. They emphasised that while the Minister's powers are broad, they are not unfettered and must be exercised according to law. The court analysed the specific provisions of the *Migration Act* and *Regulations* governing the grant and revocation of visas, and the requirements for procedural fairness. Their Honours concluded that the delegate's decision-making process, in both the initial refusal and the subsequent refusal to revoke, had failed to meet the standards of procedural fairness and had involved an error of law by failing to consider relevant factors and by considering irrelevant ones.

Consequently, the Full Federal Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the single judge and the decisions of the Minister. The matter was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.