Steve v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The applicant, Steve, sought judicial review of a decision by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to revoke the cancellation of his visa under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The delegate's decision was made on 5 September 2016, and the applicant lodged an application for review before the Tribunal on 8 September 2016. The primary issue before the court was whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the delegate's decision not to revoke the visa cancellation. This required consideration of whether the Tribunal failed to properly consider key parts of the applicant's evidence and the implications of Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the context of Australian immigration law.

The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its consideration of the evidence and its decision not to revoke the visa cancellation. The Tribunal appropriately weighed the protection of the Australian community against the applicant's history of criminal conduct and the moderate risk of reoffending, as assessed by a forensic psychologist. The court also determined that Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which pertains to the right to enter one's own country without arbitrary interference, did not apply to the applicant as Australia was not his "own country" despite his New Zealand citizenship. Furthermore, the court held that the principle of legality did not require the extension of the common law right of a citizen to enter Australia to include the applicant. The court also concluded that the language of section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act did not indicate that Parliament intended the section to apply to the applicant.

The court dismissed the application for leave to file a further amended application for review, excluding certain grounds. The applicant was granted leave to file a further amended application for review, excluding the specified grounds, and the amended application was subsequently dismissed. The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.