DUE20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

DUE20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs concerned a Sri Lankan national who had first arrived in Australia in August 2012 and applied for a protection visa on 11 January 2013. The applicant’s application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 30 January 2014. This decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 10 June 2015. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision on 2 December 2015, and the Federal Court dismissed an appeal from the Federal Circuit Court’s decision on 10 June 2016. On 20 October 2016, the applicant made a request for Ministerial intervention under section 48B of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On 2 May 2017, the Department advised the applicant in writing that his request had been assessed against the Minister’s Guidelines but was found not to meet the guidelines and therefore was not referred to the Minister for consideration. The applicant made a second request for Ministerial intervention under section 417 of the Act on 17 May 2017. The Department again advised the applicant in writing on 25 May 2017 that his request had been assessed against the Minister’s Guidelines but was found not to meet the guidelines and therefore was not referred to the Minister for consideration. The applicant made a third request for Ministerial intervention under section 417 of the Act on 4 December 2019. On 17 December 2019, a case officer within the Department assessed the applicant’s request against the Minister’s Guidelines. The assessment concluded that the request did not raise claims and circumstances that were unique and exceptional when assessed against the Guidelines and the application was assessed as not meeting the Guidelines for referral to the Minister. The Assistant Director of the Ministerial Intervention Unit agreed with the case officer’s assessment. As a result, the applicant’s request was not referred to the Minister for consideration. On 10 January 2020, the Department wrote to the applicant advising him of that decision. The applicant applied for judicial review of the decision not to refer the request for Ministerial intervention to the Minister. The applicant argued that the decision-maker had failed to take into account relevant considerations in assessing the application and had failed to give the applicant an opportunity to make submissions on the assessment. The court considered whether the decision not to refer the request to the Minister was affected by jurisdictional error. The court found that the decision was not affected by jurisdictional error. The court found that the decision-maker had considered the relevant considerations and had given the applicant an opportunity to make submissions. The court found that the decision-maker had not failed to take into account relevant considerations in assessing the application. The court found that the decision-maker had not failed to give the applicant an opportunity to make submissions on the assessment. The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.