EUF20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This case concerned an application by EUF20 against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute centred on the legal effect of a decision by the Minister to cancel the applicant's visa. The matter was heard by Driver J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was to determine the legal consequence of an error in the visa cancellation decision, specifically whether the decision was a nullity. The applicant argued that where the Minister purports to cancel a visa of a different class to the one actually held by a person, such a decision is a nullity, relying on established Federal Court precedent.

Driver J applied the principle established in *Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Schwart*, which held that a purported cancellation of a visa that did not exist is a nullity. His Honour noted that in *Schwart*, the Full Federal Court found that a decision to cancel a "Subclass 155 - Five Year Resident Return Visa" was a nullity because the applicant did not hold that specific visa class, even though the decision document referred to the relevant visa class in its annexures. Driver J also referred to *Anderson v Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, where a similar error in identifying the visa class led to the cancellation decision being declared a nullity.

The Court concluded that the applicant had successfully demonstrated that the purported cancellation decision was affected by jurisdictional error and was therefore a nullity. Consequently, the applicant was granted the relief sought, and the Court indicated it would hear the parties on the matter of costs.