LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal concerning the visa cancellation of a Vietnamese national who had been convicted of serious drug offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The appellant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and a delegate of the Minister refused to revoke this cancellation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) subsequently affirmed the delegate's decision, finding no "another reason" why the cancellation should be revoked, as required by s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act. The AAT was obligated to comply with Direction No 90, issued by the Minister under s 499 of the Act, which mandated an evaluative assessment of specific considerations, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the AAT's decision involved jurisdictional error and, if so, whether that error was material. The appellant contended that the AAT erred in its consideration of certain matters under Direction 90, specifically sub-paragraphs (a), (b), and (g) of paragraph 8.1.1(1), which related to the nature and seriousness of his conduct. The AAT's finding that there was no "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation was challenged as being based on a flawed assessment.

The High Court reasoned that for an error to be material, an applicant must demonstrate a realistic possibility that the outcome of the decision could have been different had the error not occurred. The Court held that unless it could be affirmatively concluded that the outcome would have been the same even without the error, the threshold of materiality is met. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court ordered that a writ of certiorari issue to quash the AAT's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation and a writ of mandamus issue directing the AAT to determine the appellant's request for revocation according to law.