The Federal Court held that while the AAT properly conducted the balancing exercise required under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act (distinguishing CRNL v Minister), it committed jurisdictional error by failing to address the applicant's clearly articulated argument that removal to New Zealand would deny him the opportunity to establish a face-to-face relationship with his adult son. The Court emphasised that tribunals cannot avoid jurisdictional error merely by noting a factual premise (here, no present contact with the son) without explicitly addressing how that relates to the substantive argument raised.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.