The Court held that the Tribunal reasoned illogically by finding that protection of the Australian community weighed heavily against revoking visa cancellation while simultaneously finding the applicant would most likely be released into the community on a Bridging R visa, without any reasoning reconciling these findings or identifying how BVR conditions might protect the community. The Court also held that having identified the grant of a BVR as the most likely outcome of its decision, the Tribunal was required to consider the consequences for the applicant of holding that visa, including its conditions, and its failure to do so constituted jurisdictional error. However, the Court rejected the argument that it was illogical for the Tribunal to give weight to community expectations that the applicant should not continue to hold his Humanitarian Visa, applying Plaintiff S22/2025 to hold that the expectation relates to the specific visa previously held, not to any visa at all.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.