Shinde v Minister for Immigration

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Judge Riley considered an application by Mr Shinde against the Minister for Immigration. The dispute concerned the Minister's decision to cancel Mr Shinde's visa, and whether the delegate who made the decision adequately considered the best interests of Mr Shinde's child as required by policy.

The court was required to determine whether the delegate, in considering the cancellation of Mr Shinde's visa, had given the best interests of the child the status of a primary consideration as mandated by the relevant policy. This involved assessing whether the delegate's assessment of the child's best interests was sufficiently distinct and given paramount importance, or if it was merely considered alongside other factors and family members.

Judge Riley reasoned that the pre-printed form used by the delegate did not explicitly state that the child's best interests were a primary consideration, only that they must be considered in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, the delegate's written reasons bundled the child with other family members when assessing hardship, and while the delegate noted the visa holder's aspirations regarding his children, this was found to be insufficient to demonstrate that their best interests had been treated as a primary consideration. The court found that simply acknowledging the visa holder's wishes regarding his children did not equate to a primary consideration of those best interests.