LL & PL & SDP

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, comprising Finn, Coleman, and Boland JJ, considered an appeal concerning the interpretation and application of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and related regulations. The appeal arose from a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court, and the central dispute involved the lawfulness of a decision made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation. The applicants, LL, PL, and SDP, were non-citizens whose visas had been cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act*. They subsequently sought revocation of this cancellation under s 501CA, which the Minister refused.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the Minister, in considering the application for revocation under s 501CA, had failed to take into account relevant considerations and had taken into account irrelevant considerations. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Minister had failed to give sufficient weight to certain personal circumstances and character considerations that were relevant to the revocation decision, and conversely, had improperly relied on the fact that the visa cancellation was mandatory under s 501(3A). The Court was also required to determine the proper scope of the Minister's discretion under s 501CA and the extent to which the Minister was bound by the reasons for the original cancellation.

The Full Court held that the Minister's decision-making process under s 501CA was flawed. Their Honours reasoned that while the fact of a mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A) was a relevant consideration, it was not determinative of the revocation application. The Minister was required to undertake a fresh assessment of the applicant's circumstances, including their character, in light of the grounds for revocation specified in s 501CA(4). The Court found that the Minister had placed undue emphasis on the mandatory nature of the cancellation, thereby failing to give adequate consideration to the specific factors that might warrant revocation, such as the applicant's rehabilitation and contributions to the community. This failure to properly weigh relevant considerations and the improper elevation of an irrelevant consideration (the mandatory nature of the cancellation as a standalone reason for refusal) vitiated the decision.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Minister's decision to refuse revocation, and remitted the applications for revocation to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.