The Federal Court held that the Minister's personal decision not to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation under s 501CA(4) was vitiated by jurisdictional error because the Minister proceeded on the misapprehension that he was bound by Direction 110, when the Direction by its terms applies only to delegates and tribunals, not the Minister personally. The error was material because the Minister confined his assessment of impediments to what the Direction required rather than conducting a broader assessment, and there was a realistic possibility the outcome could have been different. The Court rejected a separate ground alleging legal unreasonableness based on ostensibly inconsistent health findings, holding that when read in context the findings were reconcilable and fell well short of the extreme illogicality required.
The full text is available to signed-in members.