FJO20 v Minister for Home Affairs

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, FJO20, against the Minister for Home Affairs. The applicant sought relief in relation to his detention and removal from Australia. The case was heard by Driver J in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, an unlawful non-citizen detained under section 189 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), was entitled to the relief he sought, specifically concerning his removal from Australia. While the court noted that the general legal principles regarding the interpretation of the *Migration Act* had been extensively dealt with in prior proceedings, the questions to be resolved in this instance were primarily factual, relating to the application of those principles to the applicant's circumstances.

Driver J accepted the applicant's evidence that he had made requests to be returned to Nauru between December 2020 and January 2021, detailing his severe medical condition resulting from self-immolation and his need for ongoing treatment. However, the court also accepted the applicant's subsequent evidence that he wished to withdraw his request for removal to Nauru due to his ongoing medical needs. The court further accepted evidence from the applicant's status resolution officer, Ms. Metzlar, who confirmed the applicant's arrival as an authorised maritime arrival, transfer to Nauru, and subsequent transfer to Australia for medical treatment in August 2019. Ms. Metzlar's evidence, supported by a clinical advisory team opinion, indicated that the applicant had not yet completed the medical treatment for which he was brought to Australia and continued to require intensive rehabilitation and further surgery. Ms. Metzlar also deposed that the applicant remained an unlawful non-citizen and therefore subject to mandatory detention under section 189 of the *Migration Act*.

Based on these findings, Driver J concluded that the respondents had not yet incurred a duty to remove the applicant from Australia. Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the relief he sought. The application was therefore dismissed, with the court to hear the parties on the issue of costs.