Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Moorcroft

The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) appealed to the Full Federal Court against a decision of a single judge of that court. The appeal concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decision to refuse to grant a protection visa to Mr Moorcroft, a citizen of New Zealand. Mr Moorcroft had arrived in Australia in 2001 and had been granted a Protection Visa in 2003. In 2019, the Minister cancelled Mr Moorcroft's visa under s 501(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act) on the grounds that he did not pass the character test. Mr Moorcroft subsequently applied for a Protection Visa, which was refused by the Minister. The single judge found that the Minister's refusal to grant the Protection Visa was unlawful.

The central legal issue before the Full Federal Court was whether the Minister, in refusing to grant Mr Moorcroft a Protection Visa, had failed to consider relevant considerations and had taken into account irrelevant considerations, thereby rendering the decision invalid. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Minister's assessment of Mr Moorcroft's risk of harm if returned to New Zealand, in the context of the refusal of a Protection Visa, was vitiated by errors of law. This involved considering the scope of the Minister's obligations under s 417 of the Act, which allows the Minister to grant a visa in certain circumstances, and the interplay between the character cancellation provisions and the Protection Visa application.

Bell and Gageler JJ held that the Minister's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error. Their Honours reasoned that the Minister, in refusing the Protection Visa, had failed to properly consider the risk of harm to Mr Moorcroft if he were returned to New Zealand, which was a mandatory consideration under s 417(1)(a) of the Act. The Minister's focus on the character grounds for cancellation, while relevant to the overall assessment of Mr Moorcroft's circumstances, did not absolve the Minister from the obligation to assess the protection claims independently. The court emphasised that a decision-maker must address all mandatory considerations and that a failure to do so constitutes a jurisdictional error.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the single judge was affirmed. The Minister's decision to refuse Mr Moorcroft a Protection Visa was declared to be unlawful.