LNMR v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

Case [2024] FCA 936


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:

FHHM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 19

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 TRANSCRIPT

FEUTRILL J:

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
LNMR v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 936
Case
[2024] FCA 936
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, LNMR, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which upheld a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse to revoke the cancellation of LNMR’s visa. The dispute centred on whether the AAT made a jurisdictional error in its review of the delegate's decision by failing to take into account a mandatory consideration under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

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.