Wirangi-Hardiman (Migration)

The applicant, Wirangi-Hardiman, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to cancel their Special Category (Temporary) (Class TY) visa, subclass 444. The Minister's decision was based on the applicant's presence in Australia posing or potentially posing a risk to the safety of the Australian community, stemming from criminal convictions. The applicant argued that the decision to cancel their visa was unreasonable, particularly in light of their responsibilities as a parent to a young child. The matter came before Justice Raif in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa was affected by jurisdictional error. This required the Court to consider whether the Minister had properly weighed all relevant considerations, including the risk posed by the applicant to the Australian community and the mitigating factors presented by the applicant, such as their parental responsibilities. The Court was asked to determine if the balance struck between these competing considerations was so unreasonable that it could be characterised as a jurisdictional error.

Justice Raif reasoned that the Minister's delegate had correctly identified the relevant considerations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the associated regulations. The delegate had acknowledged the applicant's criminal history and the associated risk to the community, while also considering the applicant's parental responsibilities. However, the delegate concluded that the factors favouring cancellation, namely the risk to community safety, outweighed the factors in favour of the applicant retaining their visa. The Court found that this assessment was open to the delegate and did not constitute jurisdictional error, as the delegate had engaged in a proper balancing exercise.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.