Rangiuia v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Case [2025] FCA 920

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rangiuia v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 920

Review of: Rangiuia and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] AATA 3550
File number: NSD 1618 of 2024
Judgment of: RAPER J
Date of judgment: 11 August 2025
Catchwords: MIGRATION – decision made by delegate of Minister to cancel visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where the (then) Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed that decision under review pursuant to s 500(1)(b) but where later set aside by Federal Court of Australia and remitted for rehearing – where applicant on remittal conceded that he did not pass character test by reason of s 501(6)(b) – whether Tribunal should exercise discretion to cancel visa guided by considerations set in Direction 110 – whether Tribunal misconstrued or misapplied Direction in failing to consider, understand and/or give attention to applicant’s risk of reoffending, family violence, and the best interests of children – whether Tribunal was infected by apprehended bias – whether Tribunal engaged in irrational reasoning in considerations of impediments to return – whether Tribunal’s decision vitiated by legal unreasonableness by excessive weight on certain evidence and too little weight on others – where Tribunal failed to consider extensive evidence and effect on each child’s best interests as required by Direction 110 – application allowed
Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth) s 43(2B)

Migration Act1958 (Cth) ss 499(1), (2A), 500(1)(b), (2), 501(2), (6)(b)

Direction No 110: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (7 June 2024) paras 5.2, 7, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4(3), 8.4(4)(a), (b), (d), 9.2
Cases cited:

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879; 70 ALD 622

Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29; 273 CLR 289

CJO23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1228

CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138

FHHM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 19

Hong v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 55; 269 FCR 47

Jabari v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 98; 298 FCR 431

Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 48; 241 FCR 461

LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; 280 CLR 321

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; 244 CLR 427

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11; 237 FCR 1

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; 231 FCR 437

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; 249 CLR 332

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; 205 CLR 507

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; 206 CLR 323

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural…

Continue reading Rangiuia v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rangiuia v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 920
Case
[2025] FCA 920
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rangiuia v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the applicant, Mr Rangiuia, challenged the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to cancel his visa under section 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion to cancel the visa, considering the relevant factors specified in Direction 110, including the risk of reoffending, family violence, and the best interests of the children. The AAT had previously affirmed the Minister's decision but the Federal Court later quashed that decision and remitted the matter for rehearing. During the rehearing, Mr Rangiuia conceded that he did not pass the character test under section 501(6)(b).

The court was required to determine whether the AAT misconstrued or misapplied Direction 110 by failing to consider, understand, or give attention to Mr Rangiuia's risk of reoffending, family violence, and the best interests of his children. The court also had to decide if the AAT was infected by apprehended bias, whether it engaged in irrational reasoning, and if the decision was vitiated by legal unreasonableness due to excessive weight on certain evidence and too little on others. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if the AAT failed to consider extensive evidence and the effect on each child's best interests as required by Direction 110.

The Federal Court found that the AAT did not misconstrue or misapply Direction 110. While the AAT considered the factors outlined in Direction 110, it did not sufficiently address the mitigating evidence regarding Mr Rangiuia's risk of reoffending and the best interests of his children. The court concluded that the AAT failed to adequately consider the evidence provided, particularly the expert evidence on Mr Rangiuia's mental health and the best interests of his children. The court found the decision to be legally unreasonable and quashed the AAT's decision, remitting the matter for rehearing. The Federal Court also ordered that the Minister pay Mr Rangiuia's costs of the proceedings, as agreed or taxed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The name of the first respondent be changed to “Minister for Immigration and Citizenship”.

2. A writ of certiorari be issued quashing the second respondent’s decision under s 500(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) made on 12 March 2024 affirming the decision of a delegate of the first respondent which cancelled the applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa under s 501(2) of the Act.

3. The matter be remitted to the second respondent for determination according to law.

4. The first respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings, as agreed or taxed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The primary considerations, relevant to this application, are the protection of the Australian community (para 8.1), family violence engaged in by the non-citizen (para 8.2), the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia (para 8.3), the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (para 8.4), and the relevant other considerations are the extent of impediments if removed (para 9.2).The Tribunal’s decision There was no dispute before the Tribunal that Mr Rangiuia had been a member of the “Bandidos outlaw motorcycle gang”: AAT[5]. As such, there was no dispute that the Tribunal ought be satisfied that Mr Rangiuia did not pass the character test pursuant to s 501(6)(b). It followed that the issue for the Tribunal was whether to exercise its discretion and cancel Mr Rangiuia’s visa, under s 501(2), having been guided by the relevant considerations specified in the Direction. The Tribunal set out and gave consideration to the principles set out in the Direction. I note the following with respect to those parts of the Tribunal’s reasons that are relevant to this review. The Tribunal concluded in respect of the protection of the Australian community (para 8.1), that the nature and seriousness of Mr Rangiuia’s conduct was very serious (para 8.1.1) (AAT[33]) and Mr Rangiuia presented as a moderate risk of reoffending (para 8.1.2). At AAT[33], with respect to para 8.1.1, the Tribunal found:With respect to the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct, I conclude that his criminal and gang related conduct was very serious. He was a member of a gang from 2017 to at least July 2022 and he offended regularly from 2019 until 2021. His acts of family violence commenced in April 2018 and his final offence of possessing drugs was in March 2024. This represents a very significant period of unacceptable behaviour which has had a significant cumulative effect. As a consequence, this factor weighed heavily in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa (AAT[41]). What is evident from the reasoning is that the Tribunal was influenced by the very serious criminal conduct which included recent conduct. In between, the Tribunal making the decision on 12 March 2024 and it being quashed in July 2024, Mr Rangiuia’s partner supplied him with cannabis, for which Mr Rangiuia was charged with possessing dangerous drugs and convicted and fined $250 on 24 April 2024. As will be apparent from the grounds of review, this (mis)conduct compounded the Tribunal’s concerns as to risk of future offending. In its consideration of family violence history, the Tribunal found that Mr Rangiuia’s domestic violence history was a factor that weighed very heavily in favour of cancellation when considering his moderate risk of further offending and multiple acts of family violence (AAT[52]–[53]). In respect of the strength, nature and duration of ties Mr Rangiuia had to Australia, the Tribunal found that Mr Rangiuia has lived in Australia since he was a teenager, has three children in Australia, and has maintained employment in Australia, such that this is a factor that weighs in favour of not cancelling the visa (AAT[60]). In considering the best interests of minor children (para 8.4), the Tribunal noted Mr Rangiuia’s three children have very significant health issues, and that Mr Rangiuia has played a positive role in the lives of other parents’ children, finding the best interests of the children is a “most significant factor” (AAT[65]). With respect to the expectations of the Australian community (para 8.5), Mr Rangiuia’s failure to obey Australian law, association with outlaw motorcycle gangs and repeated engagement in domestic violence, meant that the Australian community would expect that Mr Rangiuia would not continue to hold a visa and weighed heavily in favour of cancellation (AAT[68]). With respect to impediments to return to New Zealand (para 9.2), the Tribunal considered that this consideration was of minimal weight given Mr Rangiuia grew up in and has family in New Zealand and could maintain basic living standards, although it noted the impact on his mental health conditions (AAT[81]).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The Tribunal specifically referred and considered the extent of the impediments to Mr Rangiuia if he were removed: AAT[78]–[81]. The Tribunal acknowledged, as Dr Kwok had identified, the emotional hardship Mr Rangiuia would suffer by reason of the separation from his children at AAT[79], In addition, reference was made to both Mr Rangiuia’s evidence as to his concern that his mental health would deteriorate if deported and to the acceptance, that “he may have mental health issues if he were returned to New Zealand”: at AAT[80]. I accept the submission of the Minister that the particular views expressed by Dr Kwok about the potential impact that removal might have on Mr Rangiuia’s mental health and wellbeing were subsumed in the Tribunal’s findings which were pitched at a higher level of generality: Yusuf at [91] per McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ; WAEE at [47] per French, Sackville and Hely JJ. The Tribunal had made reference to Mr Rangiuia’s own evidence and then at AAT[80] to the evidence of Dr Kwok. Whilst reference was made to another aspect of Dr Kwok’s evidence, it can be inferred that consideration was given to para [76] of Dr Kwok’s evidence given the ultimate finding in AAT[80] that Mr Rangiuia may have mental health issues if he were returned to New Zealand. Ground (c)—The Tribunal did not make irrational or illogical factual findings as to the legal consequences of its decision and the practical impediments Mr Rangiuia would face should he be removed It was unclear at hearing as to whether Mr Rangiuia was pressing this ground. No particulars for this ground were contained in Mr Rangiuia’s application, no written submission elucidated any basis for it save for bare assertion in one sentence and no oral submissions were made at hearing. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Ground (b)—The Tribunal’s decision was not infected with actual nor apprehended bias Mr Rangiuia submitted that he was not afforded procedural fairness or natural justice by the Tribunal because it acted with actual or apprehended bias in arriving at its decision and a fair-minded lay observer may reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker did not bring an impartial mind to their decision. Mr Rangiuia submitted, whilst acknowledging that such a claim is a strong one to make, on the words expressed in the Tribunal’s decision and the way the decision maker addressed the evidence, it was “evident” that “a fair-minded lay observer would consider” the decision-maker’s mind to have been “closed to persuasion”. To make good this submission, Mr Rangiuia contended that the Tribunal’s view, as articulated at AAT[87], gave a “clear insight in the way that the decision maker” approached the decision, and exhibited his “personal opinion about what should occur in matters of this type”. AAT[87] is extracted as follows: 87. Put simply, having weighed up all relevant factors, it is my view that a non-citizen cannot expect to remain in Australia if he is violent towards his partner, is a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang and commits frequent drug related crimes over a significant period of time. It will be very sad for his partner and his children and some of his friends, but the applicant has brought this on to himself and now he must bear the consequences of his poor decisions of the past.