Plaintiff M13/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Plaintiff M13/2011, a non-citizen, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation. The dispute concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decision under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter was heard by Hayne J of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister, in considering whether to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(2) of the *Migration Act*, was required to consider the best interests of a child who was an Australian citizen. The Court also considered the scope of the Minister's discretion under s 501(2) and the nature of the "best interests of a child" consideration.

Hayne J reasoned that the *Migration Act* did not impose a positive obligation on the Minister to consider the best interests of a child in the context of a s 501(2) revocation decision. His Honour noted that while the Minister had a broad discretion, this discretion was not unfettered and was to be exercised according to law. However, the statutory language did not extend the mandatory consideration of a child's best interests, which applied in other migration contexts, to this specific provision. The Court applied the principle that statutory interpretation requires adherence to the plain meaning of the text, and that obligations not expressly stated or necessarily implied are not to be imposed.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.