Mataia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Mr Mataia sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to affirm a decision to cancel his visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on the ground of having a substantial criminal record. The Tribunal's decision followed the delegate's decision, which cancelled the visa after considering the primary and other relevant considerations under Direction No. 65 - Migration Act 1958 - Direction under section 499 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of the visa under s 501C (Direction). The Tribunal considered Mr Mataia's criminal record and conduct in prison, finding that he represented an unacceptable risk of harm to individuals and groups in the Australian community.

The legal issues in this case centred on whether the Tribunal erred in failing to take into account relevant considerations under the Direction, whether it provided Mr Mataia an opportunity to respond to adverse material, and whether s 501(3A) is unconstitutional. The Court found that the Tribunal did not err in its consideration of the relevant factors. It determined that the Tribunal correctly weighed the seriousness of Mr Mataia's past conduct, the harm caused by it, and the factors leading to it, including his inability to avoid alcohol or bad company, his nature as a "follower," and his lack of insight into his conduct and its impact on victims. The Court also found that the Tribunal did not err in failing to formulate the issue in the same way as the District Court Judge.

The Court dismissed Mr Mataia's application for judicial review, holding that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by jurisdictional error. The Court also held that the delegate's decision was not relevant to the Tribunal's decision and could not be the subject of this review application. The Court found that the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant considerations under the Direction and that Mr Mataia's visa cancellation was lawful.

The final orders of the Court were that the application is dismissed and that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or taxed. Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.