Maioha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Maioha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was a case before the Federal Court concerning the revocation of a visa cancellation decision under section 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant, who had been in Australia since the age of nine and had held a visa since 1997, had her visa cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Act due to criminal convictions that led to imprisonment for 12 months or more. The applicant subsequently sought revocation of this cancellation decision, arguing that she would face significant difficulties if returned to New Zealand, including homelessness and lack of financial resources. The legal issues before the court included whether the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection had properly considered the applicant's representations and whether the Minister's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

The court found that the Minister had indeed fallen into jurisdictional error. The Minister's decision did not adequately address the applicant's specific representations regarding her financial situation and accommodation upon return to New Zealand. The court held that the Minister failed to give genuine, realistic, and proper consideration to these critical aspects of the applicant's case, particularly her claims of homelessness and lack of financial resources. This failure meant that the Minister's decision was invalid due to jurisdictional error. The court distinguished this case from Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 248 FCR 296, where it was held that assuming access to government benefits without proper consideration did not constitute jurisdictional error. Here, the court found that the Minister's broad assumption was insufficient, given the specific and detailed nature of the applicant's representations.

As a result of this jurisdictional error, the court allowed the applicant's application for judicial review. The Federal Court quashed the Minister's decision of 17 July 2017 not to revoke the visa cancellation decision. The court issued a writ of mandamus requiring the Minister to re-determine the application according to law. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding, as agreed or assessed.