Makasa v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In the Federal Court of Australia, Makasa sought judicial review of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to cancel his visa. The decision to cancel was based on Makasa's substantial criminal record, which included convictions for domestic violence, driving offences, sexual intercourse with a minor, and a failure to report offence. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Minister's decision was legally unreasonable. Makasa argued that the Minister had failed to properly consider his prospects for rehabilitation, the strength of his ties to Australia, and the hardship that would be imposed on his family if he were to be removed from Australia.

The court considered whether the Minister's decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it. The court found that the Minister had considered the relevant factors, including the seriousness of Makasa's criminal history, the risk of reoffending, and the best interests of Makasa's children. The court noted that the Minister had found that Makasa represented an ongoing likelihood of non-sexual reoffending, despite acknowledging that he was a low risk of sexual reoffending. The court concluded that the Minister's decision was not so unreasonable as to be outside the scope of the statutory powers. The court also rejected Makasa's argument that the Minister had misconstrued the statutory operation of s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The court found that the Minister had properly considered the relevant factors and had made a decision that was within the scope of the statutory powers.

The application for review was dismissed, and Makasa was ordered to pay the Minister's costs. The court found that the Minister's decision to cancel Makasa's visa was not legally unreasonable and was within the scope of the statutory powers. The court noted that the Minister had considered the relevant factors, including the seriousness of Makasa's criminal history, the risk of reoffending, and the best interests of Makasa's children. The court also found that the Minister had properly considered the strength of Makasa's ties to Australia and the hardship that would be imposed on his family if he were to be removed from Australia. The court concluded that the Minister's decision was not so unreasonable as to be outside the scope of the statutory powers.