Maurangi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia concerning a mandatory visa cancellation decision. The applicant, a citizen of New Zealand holding a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa, had his visa cancelled due to persistent polysubstance abuse and an extensive criminal history, which constituted a substantial criminal record. The applicant failed the character test, and a delegate of the Minister declined to revoke the cancellation decision. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), differently constituted. The Federal Court, by consent of the parties, quashed the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter for redetermination according to law.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal on remittal was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation decision, particularly in light of Ministerial Direction No. 99. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's mild intellectual disability and his failure to pass the character test, as defined by section 501(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which includes having a substantial criminal record. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to review the non-revocation decision stemmed from section 500(1)(ba) of the Act, read with section 25(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the practicalities of conducting the hearing following the applicant's positive COVID-19 test. Despite arrangements for video appearance, technical difficulties at the Melbourne Immigration Detention Centre prevented the applicant from connecting to the hearing. The Tribunal ultimately adjourned the hearing and, after further unsuccessful attempts at video connection, requested the applicant be brought in person. Due to the applicant's COVID-19 status, he appeared by video from an adjoining hearing room. The Tribunal noted its reliance on audio-visual links in custodial settings for timely decision-making and the necessity for available redundancy measures and expert assistance when these links fail. The decision ultimately affirmed the non-revocation decision.