Hong v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the case of Hong v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the applicant, Hong, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection not to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation made under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The application was made under section 401CA(4) of the Act, which provides for the revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation if the Minister is satisfied that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked. The primary issues before the court were whether the Tribunal failed to consider a claim made by the applicant, whether the claim was sufficiently raised on the material, evidence, and submissions before the Tribunal, and whether the decision was legally unreasonable. The court also considered whether the Tribunal failed to give proper, genuine, and realistic consideration to the applicant's claims and whether the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness by not putting its view of her use of an interpreter to her.

The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its consideration of the applicant's claims. The Tribunal had considered the merits of the applicant's case under "primary considerations" and "other considerations" as outlined in Direction 65. The Tribunal had given detailed consideration to the applicant's criminal record and found that she had little insight into her offending and did not show remorse or contrition. The court concluded that the Tribunal had properly exercised its discretion and had not failed to give proper, genuine, and realistic consideration to the material before it. The court also found that the Tribunal had not denied procedural fairness to the applicant by failing to put its view of her use of an interpreter to her. The court found no substance in the arguments that the Tribunal's decision was legally unreasonable or arbitrary.

The court further considered the argument that the Tribunal failed to give consideration to relevant material provided by the applicant in answer to a question on the revocation application form. The court found that the Tribunal had considered the relevant material and had given it proper weight in its decision. The court found that the Tribunal had not failed to give consideration to relevant material provided by the applicant.

The court dismissed the amended originating application dated 17 February 2018 with costs. The Minister was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application on an indemnity basis.