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

The case of RGCZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs involved an appeal against the refusal to grant a Partner (Provisional) visa to the visa applicant, who had previously been in Australia on a bridging visa and had criminal convictions. The appellant, who was the visa applicant's partner and the mother of their three children, sought review of the decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which upheld the delegate's decision to refuse the visa on character grounds. The Federal Court subsequently dismissed the appellant's application for judicial review. The appellant appealed to the Full Court, arguing that the Tribunal failed to comply with the relevant Ministerial Direction in considering the best interests of the children, and that this was a material error.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the Tribunal failed to comply with paragraph 8.3(3) of Ministerial Direction No. 90, which mandates individual consideration of the best interests of each child, and whether this non-compliance constituted a material error. The Full Court had to examine whether the Tribunal's failure to individually consider the best interests of each child as required by the Direction resulted in a decision that was legally flawed.

In considering these issues, the Full Court held that the Tribunal did indeed fail to comply with the Direction by not individually considering the best interests of each child. The Tribunal's reasons did not demonstrate separate consideration of the interests of each child, despite their differing circumstances, which was required by paragraph 8.3(3) of the Direction. This non-compliance with the Direction was considered by the Full Court to be a material error, as it impacted the legal correctness of the Tribunal's decision. The primary judge's dismissal of the appellant's judicial review application was also found to be in error, as it did not identify the Tribunal's failure to comply with the Direction.

Accordingly, the Full Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Federal Court, and issued a writ of certiorari to quash the Tribunal's decision. The Court also issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tribunal to review the delegate's decision according to law. Additionally, the Minister was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the proceeding and the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory directions when considering the best interests of children in migration cases.