Plaintiff S135/2020 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

In *Plaintiff S135/2020 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*, heard by Bell J of the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Minister. The core of the dispute concerned the lawfulness of the Minister's decision to refuse to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation under section 501(3)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant, who had been convicted of a criminal offence, argued that the Minister's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister, in considering whether to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation, had failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness. Specifically, the applicant contended that the Minister failed to provide him with a reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse information that was material to the decision-making process, namely, information regarding his criminal conduct and its implications.

Bell J found that the Minister had indeed committed a jurisdictional error by failing to provide procedural fairness. The Court reasoned that the Minister was obliged to provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the adverse information that was before the Minister and was material to the decision. This obligation arose from the nature of the power being exercised, which involved significant consequences for the applicant's liberty and future. The Court applied the principles established in cases such as *Kiao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* and *Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v PAAJ*.

Consequently, Bell J made orders quashing the Minister's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation and remitted the matter to the Minister for reconsideration according to law.