Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Parata & Anor

The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Federal Court. The appeal concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decision to refuse to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The primary issue was whether the Minister, when considering whether to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation, was required to consider the best interests of children who were Australian citizens.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister, in exercising the power under s 501(3)(c) of the Migration Act to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation, was bound by the implied constitutional requirement to consider the best interests of Australian citizen children. This involved an examination of the scope of the Minister's discretion under s 501(3)(c) and whether that discretion was constrained by constitutional considerations, particularly in light of the High Court's previous decision in *Love v Commonwealth* and *Thoms v Commonwealth*.

Kiefel CJ and Edelman J held that the Minister's power to revoke a visa cancellation under s 501(3)(c) was not a power that could be exercised in a manner that contravened the implied constitutional prohibition against discrimination based on race. They reasoned that the power to cancel a visa under s 501(3)(c) was not a power that could be exercised in a manner that contravened the implied constitutional prohibition against discrimination based on race. Their Honours found that the Minister's decision-making process, in refusing to revoke the visa cancellation, did not involve an exercise of power that was constitutionally invalid.

The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Full Federal Court were set aside.