Plaintiff S22/2025 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

The plaintiff, a citizen of Iraq who arrived in Australia in 2012 and held a Temporary Protection (Class XD) (subclass 785) visa, sought judicial review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The cancellation had been initiated under s 501(3A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) following the plaintiff's conviction and imprisonment for a serious offence. The plaintiff made representations under s 501CA(4) of the Act, but the delegate decided not to revoke the cancellation. The matter came before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia by way of a special case.

The legal issues before the court included whether an extension of time should be granted under s 486A(2) of the *Migration Act* for the filing of the application for constitutional writs. The court was also required to determine whether the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation was affected by jurisdictional error. This encompassed several grounds: whether the delegate failed to properly consider the legal consequences of the decision, whether the delegate's reasoning was legally unreasonable, whether the delegate failed to comply with Ministerial Direction 110 regarding community expectations, and whether the delegate denied the plaintiff procedural fairness or acted unreasonably by considering legal advice given to the plaintiff without notice.

The court reasoned that the statutory conditions for granting an extension of time under s 486A(2) were satisfied, deeming it necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to grant the extension. However, the court found that the plaintiff's contentions of jurisdictional error were not established. Specifically, the court determined that the delegate's statement regarding the plaintiff's release from detention and the subsequent consideration of visa types did not constitute a failure to confront legal consequences or legally unreasonable reasoning. The court also found no jurisdictional error in relation to compliance with Ministerial Direction 110 or in the delegate's consideration of legal advice, concluding that procedural fairness was not denied and the delegate did not act in a legally unreasonable manner.

Consequently, the court answered the questions stated for its opinion. An extension of time was granted. The non-revocation decision was found not to be affected by jurisdictional error on any of the grounds raised by the plaintiff. Accordingly, no relief was granted to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.