Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen

The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The respondent had made representations seeking the revocation of this cancellation decision under section 501CA(4) of the Act. The Minister, in deciding whether to revoke the cancellation, had relied on a departmental submission summarising the respondent's representations, a draft statement of reasons, and copies of the representations themselves. However, the Minister had only read the departmental submission and the draft statement of reasons.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister, when personally exercising the power under section 501CA(4) to revoke a visa cancellation, was obliged to personally read, identify, understand, and evaluate the respondent's representations. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Minister was required to personally examine some or all of the respondent's representations to form the requisite state of satisfaction that "another reason" existed to revoke the cancellation, or if the Minister was entitled to rely on a summary of those representations contained within a departmental submission.

The High Court held that the obligation imposed by section 501CA(4) to "read, identify, understand and evaluate" the representations meant that the Minister was required to personally engage with the substance of those representations. Relying solely on a departmental submission, even if accurate and adequate, did not satisfy this statutory obligation. The Court reasoned that the purpose of requiring the Minister to personally consider the representations was to ensure a proper and individualised assessment of whether "another reason" existed to revoke the cancellation. The Minister's failure to personally read and evaluate the representations constituted a jurisdictional error.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court, and ordered that the proceeding be dismissed.