TRHL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

TRHL (the appellant) appealed against a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the respondent) to revoke the appellant's Australian citizenship. The appellant had been convicted in the United Kingdom of multiple child sex offences. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had correctly interpreted the state of satisfaction required to enliven the discretion in s 34(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) and whether the AAT had considered whether to exercise its discretion to revoke the appellant's citizenship.

The court found that the AAT had correctly interpreted the state of satisfaction required to enliven the discretion in s 34(2) of the Citizenship Act. The court held that the AAT was not required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offences for which he had been convicted, but rather that there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction. The court also found that the AAT had considered whether to exercise its discretion to revoke the appellant's citizenship and had done so correctly. The court held that the AAT had considered all relevant factors and had not erred in law in deciding to revoke the appellant's citizenship.

The appeal was dismissed with the appellant to pay the costs of the respondent. The court held that the AAT had not erred in law in revoking the appellant's citizenship and that the appeal was without merit. The court also held that the costs of the appeal should be awarded to the respondent as the appellant had not succeeded in his appeal.