QJYD v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

In the case of QJYD v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the applicant, a citizen of New Zealand with an extensive criminal history, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming the delegate’s decision not to revoke the cancellation of his visa. The key issue before the court was whether the AAT's satisfaction that there was not "another reason" to revoke the visa cancellation was vitiated by its misunderstanding of evidence regarding the likelihood of the applicant reoffending. Additionally, the court examined whether the AAT's failure to seek further information about certain evidence was legally unreasonable and whether it failed to make an obvious inquiry regarding a critical fact that was readily ascertainable.

The court found that the AAT's understanding of the evidence, specifically a screening tool that assessed the applicant as a low risk of reoffending, was flawed. The AAT had failed to appreciate the full context of this assessment, which was relevant to its determination of the likelihood of reoffending. Despite this, the court held that the AAT's overall assessment of the applicant's risk of reoffending, taking into account other evidence and expert opinions, was not unreasonable. The AAT had considered the applicant's history of offending, expressions of remorse, and the psychologist's assessment, albeit with some limitations. The court also noted that the AAT was not legally required to seek further information regarding the screening tool, as it had already obtained substantial evidence on the applicant's risk profile.

Consequently, the court concluded that the AAT's decision was not vitiated by any jurisdictional error and dismissed the application. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent, to be assessed if not agreed.