Andrwas v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 78

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Andrwas v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 78 Appeal from: Andrwas v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1996

File number: VID 1621 of 2018

Judges: WIGNEY, MARKOVIC AND O'CALLAGHAN JJ

Date of judgment: 24 May 2019

Catchwords: MIGRATION – appeal from decision of single judge of the Federal Court of Australia dismissing application for judicial review of decision by Administrative Appeals Tribunal – appeal dismissed

Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 476A, 500(1)(ba), 501(6), 501(7)(c), 501(3A), 501CA(4)

Date of hearing: 7 May 2019

Registry: Victoria

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 41

Counsel for the Appellant: G A Costello

Solicitor for the Appellant: Victoria Legal Aid

Counsel for the Respondents: F Gordon

Solicitor for the Respondents: Minter Ellison

ORDERS VID 1621 of 2018

BETWEEN: ISSA ANDRWAS Appellant

AND: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

JUDGES: WIGNEY, MARKOVIC AND O'CALLAGHAN JJ DATE OF ORDER: 24 May 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the costs of the first respondent, to be agreed or assessed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

Introduction 1 This is an appeal from a decision of a single judge of this court dismissing the appellant's application for judicial review of a decision of the second respondent (the Tribunal). The Tribunal's decision affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (the Minister) not to revoke the cancellation of the appellant's visa. 2 The Tribunal made its decision pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) (read with s 501CA(4) of the Act and s 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)). The Tribunal found that the appellant did not pass the character test as defined in s 501(6) of the Act, with the appellant's circumstances falling within s 501(7)(c). The Tribunal was also not satisfied that there was any other reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked so as to enliven s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).