Ent19 v Minister for Home Affairs

The case of Ent19 v Minister for Home Affairs involved an Iranian national, Ent19, who entered Australia by sea from Indonesia without a valid visa in 2013 and subsequently applied for a Safe Haven Enterprise (Class XE) visa. Ent19's application for the visa was initially refused by a delegate of the Minister on the ground that Australia did not have protection obligations towards him. However, the Immigration Assessment Authority found that Ent19 was a genuine refugee. The Minister exercised his discretion under section 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to refuse the visa on character grounds. The Federal Court quashed the Minister's decision and ordered that a writ of mandamus issue, requiring the Minister to determine Ent19's visa application according to law. The Full Court issued a writ of mandamus on 26 November 2021, directing the Minister to determine Ent19's visa application by 10 December 2021. Ent19 subsequently sought supplemental orders, arguing that there had been unreasonable delay on the Minister's part in complying with the Court's order.
The court was required to decide whether it should make supplemental orders in the form sought by Ent19, given the alleged unreasonable delay on the part of the Minister in complying with the Court's order. The court noted that it had jurisdiction to make supplemental orders to aid the enforcement of the orders of the Full Court. The court considered Ent19's claim for peremptory mandamus, which was based on the argument that there was no probative basis to contend that Ent19 had an "ongoing risk" of reoffending such that he posed an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community. The court also considered Ent19's alternative claim for an order compelling the Minister to make the decision within a specified timeframe. The court found that the Minister had not made a return to the writ of mandamus issued by the Full Court, and that the return date of the writ made was legally insufficient. The court noted that peremptory mandamus may issue in cases where there is legal insufficiency in the return to the writ, as in Plaintiff S297/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2). The court concluded that it should make supplemental orders in the form sought by Ent19, directing the Minister to determine Ent19's visa application by 27 June 2022, and ordering the Minister to pay Ent19's costs of and incidental to the interlocutory application. The court also noted that the determination of the basis upon which the costs are payable and the fixing of a date for the determination of Ent19's interlocutory application were to be stood over to a date to be fixed, in the event that the parties were unable to reach agreement. The court granted liberty to apply on two days' notice in writing.