The Court held that a Commonwealth officer's decision to apply for a Nauruan visa under the third country reception arrangement, and a prior decision to designate a person as a 'Proposed Person' under the MOU, are both exercises of statutory power under s 198AHB(2) of the Migration Act and therefore 'migration decisions' — meaning the Federal Court lacks direct jurisdiction under s 476A(1) but may acquire jurisdiction via transfer from the FCFCOA (Div 2). The Court refused interlocutory injunctions to restrain the Commonwealth from applying for Nauruan visas, finding no imminent harm where the applicants had been 'sidelined' from consideration for removal with no realistic prospect of reassessment in the foreseeable future, and that the applicants' legal unreasonableness case was weak because it sought to establish that a decision not yet made, on materials not yet known, would necessarily be unreasonable. Suppression orders were made under s 37AG(1)(b) over sensitive information relating to the assessment criteria for removal to Nauru, on the basis that disclosure would damage Australia's relationship with Nauru and thereby prejudice national or international security interests.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.