DGI19 v Minister for Home Affairs

[2019] FCA 1867

Federal Court of Australia14 November 2019

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Migration
2. › Visa cancellation
3. › Mandatory cancellation under s 501(3A)
4. › Revocation under s 501CA(4)
5. › Non-revocation decision
1. Migration
2. › Non-refoulement obligations
3. › Distinction between international non-refoulement obligations and protection visa criteria under s 36(2)
1. Migration
2. › Non-refoulement obligations
3. › Role in discretionary revocation power compared with protection visa determination under s 65
1. Migration
2. › Visa cancellation
3. › Revocation under s 501CA(4)
4. › Duty to give genuine consideration to representations
5. › Failure to engage in active intellectual process

Quick Take

A Minister deciding whether to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) commits jurisdictional error by declining to consider non-refoulement obligations on the basis that they will be addressed in any future protection visa application, because the discretionary revocation power involves a qualitatively different exercise from the s 65 visa grant power, and the protection visa criteria under s 36(2) do not reflect the full scope of Australia's international non-refoulement obligations.