Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

In *Ismail v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs*, the plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant a visa under section 501 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The refusal was based on the plaintiff failing the character test, with considerations favouring refusal outweighing those favouring non-refusal. The delegate was required to comply with Direction No 90, which outlines considerations for visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of mandatory cancellations under section 501CA.

The legal issues before the court concerned whether the delegate failed to comply with paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction No 90 by not inquiring about the status of a minor child when it was legally unreasonable not to do so. The court also considered whether paragraph 8.2 of Direction No 90 permitted the delegate to give weight to family violence considerations when already considering other paragraphs, and whether paragraph 8.2 was invalid. Finally, the court examined whether the delegate misapplied paragraph 8.4 of Direction No 90.

The High Court clarified that paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction No 90 requires the decision-maker to understand the expectations of the Australian community not by inferring them in the specific case, but by reference to the views of the Australian Government as set out in paragraphs 8.4(1)-(3). This norm is then to be weighed with other relevant matters as required by paragraphs 6 and 7 of Direction No 90. The Court found that the delegate's reasoning complied with these requirements, and therefore the plaintiff's grounds of application were not sustainable.

The plaintiff was granted an extension of time to file the application for a constitutional or other writ, but the application itself was dismissed with costs.