Rodchompoo v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

In this case, Mr Rodchompoo appealed against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the Minister’s delegate’s decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa under s 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The appeal was brought in the Federal Court of Australia and the court was required to determine whether the AAT’s decision involved jurisdictional error.

The court considered several grounds of review, including whether the AAT’s adoption of the Minister’s Statement of Facts and Contentions constituted jurisdictional error, whether the AAT erred by not making inquiries, whether the AAT failed to consider mandatory relevant considerations in its assessment of the considerations in Ministerial Direction No. 65, and whether the AAT erred in its assessment of the impact on victims based on the evidence, or lack thereof, before it. The court also considered whether the AAT’s decision was manifestly unreasonable or irrational, and whether greater duties were imposed upon the AAT as the applicant was unrepresented.

The court found that the AAT’s decision did not involve jurisdictional error. The AAT had correctly adopted the Minister’s Statement of Facts and Contentions, and had not erred in failing to make inquiries or to consider mandatory relevant considerations. The AAT had also properly assessed the impact on victims, based on the evidence before it. The court found that the AAT’s decision was not manifestly unreasonable or irrational, and that there were no greater duties imposed upon the AAT as the applicant was unrepresented.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the first respondent, to be assessed if not agreed. The decision of the AAT was upheld, and the Minister’s delegate’s decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Rodchompoo’s visa was affirmed.