FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
LNMR v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 936
Review of: LNMR v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Administrative Appeals Tribunal, No. 2023/5591, 17 October 2023) File number: WAD 284 of 2023 Judgment of: FEUTRILL J Date of judgment: 30 July 2024 Date of publication of reasons: 19 August 2024 Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for judicial review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’s decision refusing to revoke cancellation decision of the delegate of the Minister under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether there was jurisdictional error – failure to take into account mandatory consideration of s 499 direction
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consent order for issue of constitutional writs - consideration of applicable principles
Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 499, 500(1)(ba), 501(3A), 501CA(3), 501CA(4) Cases cited: Irwin v Military Rehabilitation & Compensation Commission [2009] FCAFC 33; 174 FCR 574
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17; 275 CLR 582
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15; 256 CLR 203
Division: General Division Registry: Western Australia National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 6 Date of hearing: 30 July 2024 Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms G Ellis Solicitor for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Counsel for the Second Respondent: The Second Respondent submits to any order of the Court, save as to the question of costs. ORDERS
WAD 284 of 2023 BETWEEN: LNMR
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
FEUTRILL J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 JULY 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.A writ of certiorari issue to quash the decision made by the second respondent dated 17 October 2023 to affirm the decision made by a delegate of the first respondent not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s class BA subclass 200 Refugee and Humanitarian (permanent) visa.
2.A writ of mandamus requiring the second respondent to determine the application made to it for review of the delegate’s decision according to law.
3.The first respondent pay the applicant’s costs, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPTFEUTRILL J:
The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (Administrative Appeals Tribunal) affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) not to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Minister has conceded that the Tribunal failed to consider the nature and duration of the applicant's links to his former partner, Ms Aimee McQuillan, as was required by cl 8.33 and cl 8.34 of Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and…
Continue reading LNMR v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultur...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- LNMR v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 936
- Case
- [2024] FCA 936
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT erred in law by not adequately considering the mandatory direction under section 499 of the Act, which requires consideration of the personal circumstances of the visa holder. The court was required to determine whether this omission constituted a jurisdictional error warranting the quashing of the AAT’s decision and mandating a fresh review. Additionally, the court considered the procedural fairness and the proper application of the relevant statutory provisions.
The court found that the AAT did indeed make a jurisdictional error by not taking into account the mandatory consideration under section 499. This failure meant the AAT's review process was flawed, leading to an unjust outcome. The court concluded that the AAT’s decision must be quashed and a fresh review ordered. It also highlighted that the Minister's delegate must now consider the personal circumstances of LNMR as required by law. The court further ruled that the Minister should bear the costs of the proceedings as agreed or taxed.
The court issued a writ of certiorari to quash the AAT’s decision and a writ of mandamus to compel the Minister to review the delegate's decision according to law. The Minister was ordered to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or taxed, reflecting the court's determination that the Minister’s delegate had not properly exercised their statutory powers.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. A writ of certiorari issue to quash the decision made by the second respondent dated 17 October 2023 to affirm the decision made by a delegate of the first respondent not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s class BA subclass 200 Refugee and Humanitarian (permanent) visa.
2. A writ of mandamus requiring the second respondent to determine the application made to it for review of the delegate’s decision according to law.
3. The first respondent pay the applicant’s costs, as agreed or taxed.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.