McQueen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 3)

In McQueen v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (No 3), the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to review the decision of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse the revocation of a visa cancellation under section 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant, Mr Joseph Leon McQueen, sought to challenge the Minister's decision, claiming that it was made without proper consideration of the merits of his representations and that the Minister had effectively delegated the decision to departmental officers.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the Minister had failed to exercise his personal power under section 501CA and instead delegated the decision to department officers. The court also considered the extent to which the Minister could be assisted by department officers in the deliberative process, whether the Minister must consider representations personally, and whether the Minister's reasons for the decision failed to respond to a substantial, clearly articulated argument, rendering the decision legally unreasonable, illogical or irrational.

In reaching its decision, the court relied on previous cases, such as Folau v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, where the Full Federal Court held that a Minister may adopt reasons prepared by someone else if they accurately reflect the Minister's own process of reasoning. However, the court distinguished these cases from the present case, as there was some evidence pointing to a contrary inference in McQueen's case. The court held that the Minister must engage in an active intellectual process and give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the particular case before adopting any draft reasons as his own.

The court found that the Minister had, in fact, personally considered the case and adopted the draft reasons as his own, as evidenced by his signatures on the decision record and the statement of reasons. The court concluded that the applicant had not discharged his onus to show that the Minister made the jurisdictional error alleged and dismissed the appeal. The court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the Minister's decision, and remitted the matter to the Minister for determination according to law. The applicant was granted liberty to apply for relief in the nature of mandamus, and the Minister was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application.