Pannasara v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

In the case of Pannasara v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the applicant, Pannasara, sought to appeal a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had refused his application for a visa. The AAT had found that Pannasara was not of good character due to his criminal convictions, leading to the refusal of his visa application under section 501 of the Migration Act. Pannasara applied to the Federal Court of Australia for an extension of time to appeal the AAT decision, arguing that the AAT had erred in considering his criminal convictions in determining his character.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had made an error of law in considering Pannasara's criminal convictions as evidence of his lack of good character. The court needed to determine if there was merit in the argument that the AAT should not have considered the convictions because there was an outstanding application for special leave to appeal to the High Court against those convictions. Additionally, the court considered whether the AAT had erred by focusing solely on Pannasara's criminal convictions and ignoring other aspects of his general conduct when assessing his character.

The court found that the AAT had not erred in considering Pannasara's criminal convictions. Convictions are evidence of criminal conduct and have effect while they stand. The court held that the AAT was required to consider the facts as they appeared at the time of making the decision, and there was no legal basis for attributing error to the AAT on this ground. Furthermore, the court clarified that while the AAT must consider both past criminal conduct and general conduct, it was not necessary for the AAT to confine its consideration to criminal conduct alone. The AAT's focus on Pannasara's criminal convictions did not constitute an error of law, as it was reasonable to consider his character based on the evidence available at the time.

ORDERS:
1. The application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be dismissed.
2. The proceeding be dismissed.
3. The applicant pay the costs of the respondents.