Thompson v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The case of Thompson v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs involves the applicant, who was born in New Zealand and has resided in Australia since moving there in 2001. The applicant has a history of criminal offences, including domestic violence, culminating in a conviction for the murder of his partner in 2006. His visa was cancelled in 2019 due to his criminal record, and he sought a review of the decision to revoke the cancellation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) upheld the decision not to revoke the cancellation, leading the applicant to seek judicial review of the AAT's decision.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the AAT failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not properly balancing the relevant considerations under Direction 90, whether it failed to respond to the applicant's substantial and clearly articulated arguments, and whether it was necessary to extend the time for bringing the application for judicial review. The court needed to determine if the AAT's reasoning was perfunctory or formulaic, and if it overlooked significant arguments made by the applicant.

The court found that the AAT did not fail to exercise its jurisdiction by not balancing the relevant considerations against each other. The reasoning in CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs provided guidance, indicating that the AAT must demonstrate it actually weighed the various considerations. However, the court held that the AAT in this case did not express a conclusion without demonstrating such a weighing process, and therefore the ground of review was not made out. On the other hand, the court found that the AAT failed to respond to the applicant's substantial and clearly articulated arguments regarding the impact of his removal on his son. The AAT did not explicitly address these arguments, which led to a jurisdictional error. Consequently, the application for judicial review was allowed on this ground.

The court granted the applicant an extension of time to file his application for review, quashed the AAT's decision, and remitted the matter back to the AAT for reconsideration according to law. The parties were instructed to confer on costs and, if unable to reach an agreement, to arrange for a relisting to discuss the matter further.