PRHR v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The applicant, PRHR, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant a protection visa. The core of the dispute concerned the weight to be given to certain considerations in the decision-making process, particularly in light of legislative changes.

The court was required to determine whether the legal consequences of refusing a protection visa were a relevant consideration for the Minister. Additionally, the court considered the consistency of Direction 65 with the law, specifically in relation to section 197C of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and whether any inconsistency could be severed.

The Deputy President, S A Forgie, reasoned that section 197C of the *Migration Act* is relevant when non-refoulement obligations arise, clarifying that the duty to remove an unlawful non-citizen under section 198 is irrespective of whether Australia's non-refoulement obligations have been assessed. The court examined the primary considerations outlined in Direction 65, including the protection of the Australian community from criminal conduct. It noted that the nature and seriousness of an applicant's conduct, the risk to the community, the sentence imposed, the frequency of offending, and whether the conduct would be an offence in Australia are all factors to be considered. In PRHR's case, the court found that while the offences committed in Australia were the first of their kind, they were likely preceded by others in Sri Lanka, for which PRHR had served a significant period of imprisonment. The court concluded that PRHR's behaviour, even in the context of politically motivated violence in Sri Lanka, was within his control, and he had made choices that led to violent encounters and harm to others.

The decision affirmed the Minister's refusal to grant the protection visa.