Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 115
Ground 1 failed because the Tribunal expressly referred to the appellant's health when assessing impediments to removal, accurately recorded his evidence, and was not shown to have ignored the evidence of trauma counselling or to have confined consideration only to diagnosed conditions. Ground 2 succeeded because the Tribunal did not consider the contestable question whether Ms S was a "member of [the appellant's] family" for the purposes of the definition of "family violence" in Direction 90 and appeared erroneously to reason that, because she was an intimate partner, violence against her was family violence. That error was material because the Tribunal relied on family violence in...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 July 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Non Revocation of Mandatory Visa Cancellation / Full Court Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; primary judge's orders set aside; Tribunal's decision quashed; matter remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted.
- Legal Topics
- ['mandatory Visa Cancellation Under S 501(3 A) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'revocation Under S 501 CA of the Migration Act 1958 (cth)' 'direction No 90' 'family Violence' 'jurisdictional Error' 'constructive Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction' 'extent of Impediments If Removed']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Non Revocation of Mandatory Visa Cancellation / Full Court Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the Tribunal constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction by failing to consider the appellant's health, specifically his mental health, when considering the extent of impediments if removed to South Sudan." 'Whether the Tribunal acted on a misunderstanding of the applicable law by treating Ms S as a family member for the purposes of the definition of "family violence" in Direction No 90.' "Whether any error in the Tribunal's treatment of family violence was material."]
Ratio Decidendi
Ground 1 failed because the Tribunal expressly referred to the appellant's health when assessing impediments to removal, accurately recorded his evidence, and was not shown to have ignored the evidence of trauma counselling or to have confined consideration only to diagnosed conditions. Ground 2 succeeded because the Tribunal did not consider the contestable question whether Ms S was a "member of [the appellant's] family" for the purposes of the definition of "family violence" in Direction 90 and appeared erroneously to reason that, because she was an intimate partner, violence against her was family violence. That error was material because the Tribunal relied on family violence in...
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; primary judge's orders set aside; Tribunal's decision quashed; matter remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted.
Orders
- ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The orders made by the primary judge on 23 November 2021 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that the decision of the second respondent (the Tribunal) dated 5 July 2021 be quashed.' "The first respondent pay the applicant's costs, as agreed or taxed." 'The matter be remitted to...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment