Young v Minister for Home Affairs and Anor (No.2)

In *Young v Minister for Home Affairs and Anor (No.2)*, heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the applicant challenged the validity of a visa cancellation notice. The applicant contended that the notice was defective because it failed to specify whether the cancellation decision was reviewable under Part 5 or Part 7 of the relevant Act, as required by section 127(2)(b). The Minister argued that the notice was valid and relied on a previous decision of Emmett J in *Yu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs*, while the applicant relied on the more recent decision of Riethmuller J in *Parata v Minister for Home Affairs*.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the visa cancellation notice complied with the mandatory requirements of section 127(2)(b) of the Act, specifically the obligation to "state whether the decision is reviewable under Part 5 or 7". The Court was required to determine if the notice, which stated that the decision could be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, satisfied this requirement, or if the failure to explicitly mention Parts 5 or 7 rendered the notification invalid.

Judge Blake reasoned that the language of section 127(2)(b) was clear and mandatory, requiring the notice to "state" the specified information. The Court noted that the notice provided to the applicant did not explicitly state whether the decision was reviewable under Part 5 or Part 7, but rather generally indicated that a review was possible with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Court found the reasoning in *Parata* persuasive, where Riethmuller J concluded that a precise approach to the provision was necessary due to the strict time limits involved in the review process. The Court adopted the view that section 127(2)(b) had not been complied with, and therefore the applicant had not been notified in accordance with the section.