Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Gubbay v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 1417 File number: QUD 39 of 2020
Judgment of: REEVES J
Date of judgment: 1 October 2020
Catchwords: MIGRATION – application for review of a migration decision – where the applicant's visa was cancelled by the Minister for Home Affairs (the Minister) acting personally under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) – where the applicant was convicted of several domestic violence offences – where the applicant accepts he did not satisfy the character test under s 501BA(2)(a) of the Act – whether the Minister was satisfied under s 501BA(2)(b) of the Act that it was in the national interest to cancel the applicant's visa – whether the Minister acted in a manner that was legally unreasonable – whether the Minister reached the requisite state of satisfaction – whether the Minister considered the impact on the applicant's children of the applicant's separation from them – whether the Minister was required to consider this impact in considering the national interest – whether the Minister was required to consider the operation of the special return criterion in cl 5001 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – application dismissed
Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Migration Amendment (Special Category Visas and Special Return Criterion 5001) Regulation 2015 (Cth) Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Cases cited: Ali v Minister for Home Affairs (2020) 380 ALR 393; [2020] FCAFC 109 BFH16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 54 BHL19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 94 Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110 Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 252 FCR 352; [2017] FCAFC 107 DLJ18 v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 273 FCR 66; [2019] FCAFC 236 EHF17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 272 FCR 409; [2019] FCA 1681 Minister for Home Affairs v Omar (2019) 272 FCR 589; [2019] FCAFC 188 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v BHA17 (2018) 260 FCR 523; [2018] FCAFC 68 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 264 CLR 541; [2018] HCA 30 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611; [2010] HCA 16 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611; [1999] HCA 21 NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 220 FCR 1; [2014] FCAFC 38 Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal (2012) 246 CLR 379; [2012] HCA 36 Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 258 CLR 173; [2015] HCA 50 Re Paterson; Ex parte Taylor (2001) 207 CLR 391; [2001] HCA 51 Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 246 FCR 146; [2016] FCAFC 177 Derrington R, "Migrating Towards a Principled Approach to Reviewing Jurisdictional Facts" (2020) 27 A J Admin L 70-87
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate