Griffiths v Minister for Immigration (No.2)

The applicant, a citizen of the United Kingdom, sought judicial review of the Assistant Minister's decision not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of their Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa, made under section 501CA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the Assistant Minister had failed to consider a mandatory consideration when making the decision not to revoke the cancellation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Assistant Minister had complied with the requirements of section 501CA(4) by considering all mandatory considerations, specifically whether the Assistant Minister failed to consider a mandatory consideration. A secondary issue was whether the Assistant Minister had complied with the requirements of procedural fairness.

Justice Street found that the Assistant Minister had complied with the procedural fairness obligations. The Court distinguished the present case from *Tesic v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2016] FCA 1465, finding that the facts were not analogous. The Court concluded that no jurisdictional error had been identified in the Assistant Minister's decision-making process.

Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed.