SZSSJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor

This matter came before Judge Cameron of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision, but the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the decision in question was not a "migration decision" as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act). The applicant had not identified an actual or prospective decision that could be characterised as a migration decision, and the Court agreed with the Minister's submission that the application did not enliven its jurisdiction.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant had identified a "migration decision" within the meaning of the Act, which is a prerequisite for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction under s 476(1) of the Act. The Court considered the definitions of "migration decision," "privative clause decision," and "purported privative clause decision" as provided in ss 5 and 474 of the Act, as well as Regulation 5.35AA of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth).

Judge Cameron reasoned that the applicant had failed to point to any actual or prospective decision that met the statutory definition of a migration decision. While the applicant speculated that the release of certain information might have flowed from a departmental decision, the Court found that, in light of the relevant legislative provisions, such a decision would not constitute a migration decision. Specifically, the Court noted that the definitions in ss 5, 5E, and 474 of the Act, read with reg 5.35AA, excluded certain decisions from being classified as migration decisions. As the Court's jurisdiction is confined to migration decisions, it concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the applicant's case.

Consequently, the applicant's application was dismissed for failing to disclose an arguable case for the relief sought.