Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 48

Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 48

The applicant had no accrued right under Direction No. 55; his right to merits review arises under statute, and the Tribunal is required to apply the current Ministerial Direction at the time of decision in accordance with s 499(2A) of the Migration Act. The revocation of Direction No. 55 did not affect any substantive right preserved by s 7(2)(c) of the Acts Interpretation Act. No jurisdictional error occurred; application dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Full Court Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'ministerial Directions' 'retrospective Application' 'acts Interpretation Act']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'ministerial Directions' 'retrospective Application' 'acts Interpretation Act']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Full Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Direction No. 55 or Direction No. 65 applies to Tribunal review' 'Whether applicant accrued a right preserved by s 7(2)(c) of Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)' 'Whether Ministerial Directions under s 499 Migration Act are legislative or administrative instruments' 'Effect of revocation of Ministerial Directions on pending review']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had no accrued right under Direction No. 55; his right to merits review arises under statute, and the Tribunal is required to apply the current Ministerial Direction at the time of decision in accordance with s 499(2A) of the Migration Act. The revocation of Direction No. 55 did not affect any substantive right preserved by s 7(2)(c) of the Acts Interpretation Act. No jurisdictional error occurred; application dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of and incidental to the application."]