Filipovich v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 846

Filipovich v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 846

The application failed because DKN20 was conclusive that cl 14.4 did not require the Tribunal to consider the beneficial impact on the Applicant's mother as a family member victim in the manner alleged. In any event, the Tribunal had considered the substance of the impact on the Applicant's mother under cl 14.2 and was not required to repeat the same consideration under cl 14.4. Further, any error was not material because the Applicant did not show a realistic possibility that the Tribunal's decision could have been different.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Affirming a Decision Not to Revoke the Cancellation of the Applicant's Visa / Federal Court Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
['visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'revocation of Mandatory Visa Cancellation' 'ministerial Direction No. 79' 'jurisdictional Error' 'materiality']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'revocation of Mandatory Visa Cancellation' 'ministerial Direction No. 79' 'jurisdictional Error' 'materiality']

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

Application for Judicial Review of a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Affirming a Decision Not to Revoke the Cancellation of the Applicant's Visa / Federal Court Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal misunderstood and misapplied cl 14.4(1) of Ministerial Direction No. 79 by finding that it only required or authorised consideration of evidence from victims adverse to the Applicant.' "Whether cl 14.4(1) required consideration of the beneficial impact on the Applicant's mother, who was both an immediate family member and a victim of his offending, if the Applicant remained in Australia." "Whether any error in the Tribunal's approach was material."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because DKN20 was conclusive that cl 14.4 did not require the Tribunal to consider the beneficial impact on the Applicant's mother as a family member victim in the manner alleged. In any event, the Tribunal had considered the substance of the impact on the Applicant's mother under cl 14.2 and was not required to repeat the same consideration under cl 14.4. Further, any error was not material because the Applicant did not show a realistic possibility that the Tribunal's decision could have been different.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for judicial review is dismissed.' "The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent's costs to be taxed in default of agreement."]