NRFX v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The appeal in NRFX v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs concerns the cancellation of the appellant's visa by the Minister under section 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The appellant, a British citizen who has lived in Australia since the age of 17, was convicted of multiple sexual offences against a child. The conviction triggered a mandatory cancellation of his visa under section 501(3A) of the Act, which the appellant subsequently sought to have revoked by the Minister. Although the Minister initially declined to revoke the cancellation, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) set aside the Minister's decision and revoked the visa cancellation. However, the Minister subsequently exercised his power under section 501BA(2) to cancel the appellant's visa, a decision which the appellant now appeals.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around the Minister's obligation to consider Australia's international obligations, particularly those under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, when deciding whether to cancel a visa. The appellant argued that the Minister should have taken into account the potential non-compliance with the Convention in his decision-making process. The court also had to determine whether the decision in Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v CWY20 was inconsistent with the later High Court decision in Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs. The court found that the Minister was not required to consider Australia's obligations under the Convention or the consequences of non-compliance in making his decision, as established by the High Court in Plaintiff M1/2021.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Minister was not obliged to consider the potential impact of Australia's non-compliance with international obligations in making his decision to cancel the appellant's visa. The court found that there was no actual or prospective non-compliance in the present case. Moreover, following the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M1/2021, there was no requirement for the Minister to consider Australia's obligations under the Convention or the consequences of non-compliance. The Minister's decision to cancel the appellant's visa was thus legally sound and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.