XYJY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2025] FCA 1572

Federal Court of Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Migration
1. where applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled on character grounds pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act)
1. where the Tribunal affirmed delegate’s decision not to revoke visa cancellation pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act
1. where the applicant contends Tribunal erred in applying para 8.1 of the Direction No 110 because it misunderstood and mischaracterised applicant’s criminal history– where Tribunal’s failure to expressly acknowledge sentences of imprisonment were suspended was not material as it formed no part of the dispositive reasoning of Tribunal in assessing the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct

When assessing the nature and seriousness of offending under paragraph 8.1.1(c) of Direction No. 110, the manner in which a sentence of imprisonment is to be served — including whether it is suspended — is relevant, unlike the character test under s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act which focuses solely on the term of imprisonment; however, a failure to expressly acknowledge suspension is not jurisdictional error where the suspended sentences formed no part of the dispositive reasoning on seriousness.
A Tribunal's finding that an applicant has employment options and can support himself without a disability support pension is not legally unreasonable where it is based on the applicant's own evidence of intention to find work, steps taken toward employment, and past capacity for full-time work, even absent evidence of a current job offer.
Finding some matters pertaining to future events too speculative while evaluating other aspects of an applicant's future conduct is an ordinary incident of the evidence assessment process required by s 501CA(4) and does not demonstrate internal inconsistency or constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction; nor does the use of templates or references to submissions made to a delegate, provided the Tribunal's reasons as a whole demonstrate independent engagement with the matter before it.