Fhe20 v Minister for Home Affairs

This matter came before Driver J of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia concerning an application by the applicant, identified as Fhe20, against the Minister for Home Affairs. The dispute centred on the applicant's continued detention in Australia, following his transfer from Nauru for medical treatment. The applicant, a Rohingya refugee recognised in Nauru, had been lawfully detained on arrival in Australia under section 198AD of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and subsequently transferred to Nauru under the same provision. He was later brought to Australia for medical treatment under section 198B of the *Migration Act*.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's continued detention in Australia was lawful, given that the temporary medical purpose for which he was brought to Australia had been completed. While the broader legal principles concerning the interpretation of the *Migration Act* in relation to such transfers had been extensively litigated in other proceedings, the present case required a factual determination regarding the applicant's circumstances and the engagement of relevant statutory duties.

Driver J accepted the evidence presented, including affidavits from the applicant and departmental officers, which established that the applicant was a recognised refugee from Myanmar who had been lawfully detained and transferred to Nauru. The Court found that the medical treatment for which the applicant was brought to Australia was complete. Despite the applicant having made requests to be returned to Nauru, the Court noted his subsequent evidence indicating a fear of returning due to prior experiences. Applying the principles from *ADM21 v Minister for Home Affairs*, the Court concluded that the applicant no longer needed to remain in Australia for the temporary medical purpose. Consequently, the pre-conditions in section 198AH(1A) of the *Migration Act* were met, engaging the duty under section 198AD(2) of the *Migration Act*.

The Court found that the applicant no longer needed to be in Australia for the temporary purpose for which he was brought. The respondent Ministers had provided undertakings not to remove the applicant until judgment was given, and the Court accepted these undertakings. The proceedings were adjourned pending further consideration of the applicant's circumstances.