Price v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 171
The appellant's sentence was a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for the purposes of s 501(7)(c); no anterior choice of cancellation power attracting natural justice or legal reasonableness obligations was required before the mandatory s 501(3A) cancellation; and, reading the Tribunal's reasons as a whole, the Tribunal undertook its own assessment of the seriousness of the appellant's offending and did not misunderstand or fail to comply with Direction 90. The appeal therefore failed.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 October 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Migration Appeal From Judgment Dismissing Application for Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Non Revocation of Mandatory Visa Cancellation Under S 501 Ca(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Appeal to Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['mandatory Visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'substantial Criminal Record' 'revocation of Visa Cancellation' 'jurisdictional Error' 'natural Justice' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'direction 90' 'collateral Challenge to Cancellation Decision']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Judgment Dismissing Application for Judicial Review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Affirming Non Revocation of Mandatory Visa Cancellation Under S 501 Ca(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (cth) / Appeal to Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the appellant's 12 month sentence commencing on 14 January 2016 and expiring on 13 January 2017 satisfied s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)." 'Whether the cancellation decision under s 501(3A) was legally ineffective because of denial of natural justice or legal unreasonableness concerning which cancellation power was exercised.' 'Whether the Tribunal misunderstood or failed to comply with para 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) of Direction 90 by treating violent offences as necessarily very serious and failing to undertake its own assessment of seriousness.']
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant's sentence was a sentence of 12 months imprisonment for the purposes of s 501(7)(c); no anterior choice of cancellation power attracting natural justice or legal reasonableness obligations was required before the mandatory s 501(3A) cancellation; and, reading the Tribunal's reasons as a whole, the Tribunal undertook its own assessment of the seriousness of the appellant's offending and did not misunderstand or fail to comply with Direction 90. The appeal therefore failed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs."]
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