Plaintiff B65/2020 v The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application for a constitutional writ. The applicant, identified as Plaintiff B65/2020, sought relief against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The proceedings involved submissions regarding the plaintiff's request for an extension of time to bring the application, the merits of the case, and the potential issue of remittal.

The central legal issues before the Court included whether the Minister's delegate lawfully cancelled the plaintiff's visa under section 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This question was complicated by the fact that the plaintiff's criminal convictions, which underpinned the visa cancellation, were subsequently overturned on appeal by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The Court was also required to consider the plaintiff's explanation for failing to seek revocation of the visa cancellation within the prescribed time, which was attributed to his limited English literacy.

The plaintiff's legal team argued that the overturning of the convictions rendered the original visa cancellation void *ab initio*, contending that the plaintiff could not be considered to have ever been convicted. The Minister's position, as conveyed by his solicitors, was that the cancellation power was validly exercised and that the subsequent quashing of the convictions did not affect the lawfulness of the cancellation decision. The Court also noted a potential analogy with the case of *Moorcroft*, which raised similar issues regarding the effect of overturned deportation decisions on subsequent immigration decisions, and indicated a willingness to reserve its decision pending the outcome of that case.