SZFCL v MIMIA

The case of SZFCL v MIMIA involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning the interpretation of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and its application to a non-citizen who had been granted a protection visa. The appellant, SZFCL, sought to challenge a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (MIMIA) to refuse to revoke a decision to cancel SZFCL's protection visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Minister had a duty to consider certain information when deciding whether to revoke the visa cancellation.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Minister, in considering a request to revoke a visa cancellation under s 501(12) of the *Migration Act*, was obliged to consider information that had become available *after* the initial decision to cancel the visa had been made, but *before* the Minister made the decision on the revocation request. A further issue was whether the Minister's decision-making power under s 501(12) was conditioned by the existence of a "new fact" or "change of circumstances" that would necessitate a revocation.

The Court held that the Minister's power to revoke a visa cancellation under s 501(12) was not limited to situations where new facts or changed circumstances were presented. Rather, the Minister was empowered to revoke the cancellation if they were satisfied that the cancellation decision was not, or was no longer, required. Crucially, the Court found that the Minister had a duty to consider all relevant information before them at the time of deciding the revocation request, including information that had arisen after the initial cancellation. This duty arose from the nature of the power conferred by s 501(12), which required the Minister to make an informed assessment of whether the cancellation remained justified.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Federal Court of Australia for further consideration in accordance with the High Court's judgment.