Nguyen v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 128

MIGRATION – decision of Minister, personally exercising the power under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), to set aside revocation decision and to cancel the appellant’s spouse visa – whether Minister’s finding that there was an ongoing likelihood the appellant will re-offend was legally unreasonable – whether the Minister formed the view that he was precluded from inviting the appellant to make submissions or provide further material and thereby misunderstood the operation of s 501BA – Ibrahim v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 89 applied.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from a single judge of the Court – whether leave should be granted to rely on an amended notice of appeal.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from a single judge of the Court – whether Full Court should exercise its discretion to receive further evidence.

Theresa Baw and Renae Kumar represented the Appellant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Sabharwal v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 10

From the Federal Court of Australia:

MIGRATION – application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister to refuse a visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether Minister misconstrued or misapplied s 501(6)(d)(i) of the Act – whether Minister required to give consideration to a psychologist’s report

Dr Stephen Tully appeared pro bono for the applicant.

AMZ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1195

MIGRATION ― appeal from decision of the Federal Circuit Court ― whether primary judge erred in failing to find that Refugee Review Tribunal did not comply with s 425(1) of theMigration Act 1958 (Cth) ― whether Tribunal gave appellant opportunity to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ― illogicality or irrationality ― whether primary judge erred in failing to find that Tribunal’s decision illogical or irrational

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ― unreasonableness ― whether primary judge gave inadequate consideration to whether Tribunal’s decision legally unreasonable

Stephen Tully appeared for the appellant

AGU16 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 1647

MIGRATION – whether the Tribunal misconstrued the requirements of a ministerial direction – whether the Tribunal failed to take relevant considerations into account – real chance test – well-founded fear test – whether the Tribunal failed to apply the correct legal test – whether the Tribunal misconstrued or misapplied case law– whether the Tribunal failed to comply with s.425 of the Migration Act 1954 – no jurisdictional error identified – application dismissed.

AMZ15 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 473

MIGRATION – Review of decision of former Refugee Review Tribunal – refusal of a protection visa – applicant claiming persecution in Sri Lanka on various bases – applicant’s claims of harm not believed – whether the Tribunal breached s.425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), made an irrational or illogical decision, made findings without probative evidence or made an unreasonable decision considered – no jurisdictional error.

Dr Stephen Tully appeared for the applicant.

Plaintiff S42 of 2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] HCATrans 46

MIGRATION - deportation order - refusal to grant Protection (Class XA) visa 

Dr Stephen Tully appeared for the Applicant.

CGG15 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 219

MIGRATION – Subclass 050 bridging visa – cancellation of bridging visa – applicant charged with serious criminal offences – Ministerial Direction No.63 – whether the Tribunal failed to consider or comply with Direction – whether Tribunal’s decision was based on a finding of fact for which there was no evidence – Tribunal failed to consider all of the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose – jurisdictional error – writs issued.

Dr Stephen Tully appeared for the successful applicant.

Peter Uelese and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 740

MIGRATION - Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa – criminal offences – cancellation of visa – Direction 65 – character test – protection of Australian community – best interests of minor children – whether risk of future harm to Australian community unacceptable – history of violent criminal conduct – significant risk of reoffending – lack of rehabilitation – countervailing considerations of children – decision affirmed.