Plaintiff B34-2019 v Minister for Home Affairs & Ors

In the High Court of Australia, the plaintiff, identified as B34-2019, sought judicial review of the decision by an officer of the Department of Home Affairs not to refer the plaintiff's request for personal ministerial intervention under s 48B of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) to the Minister. The plaintiff, a citizen of Sri Lanka who had arrived in Australia in 2012, had his Safe Haven Enterprise visa application refused, and subsequent reviews and appeals were unsuccessful. The plaintiff's request for ministerial intervention was refused on the basis that it did not meet the relevant guidelines.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the plaintiff's application for a constitutional or other writ disclosed an arguable basis for relief, specifically concerning the non-referral of his s 48B request. The plaintiff's application was formulated on grounds substantially identical to those previously considered and dismissed by the Court in numerous prior applications. The Court was required to determine if these grounds, in the context of the *Migration Act* and established High Court precedent, warranted further consideration.

The Court reasoned that the power conferred by s 48B of the *Migration Act* on the Minister to exempt a person from the operation of s 48A is non-compellable and must be exercised personally by the Minister. The Court referred to its previous decision in *S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* (2012) 246 CLR 636, indicating that this established principle provided a complete answer to the plaintiff's application. The Court found that the plaintiff's application did not disclose an arguable basis for the relief sought, noting the repetitive nature of the grounds and their consistent rejection in previous cases.

Consequently, the High Court ordered that the plaintiff's application for a constitutional or other writ be dismissed with costs, pursuant to rule 25.09.1 of the *High Court Rules 2004* (Cth).