Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Makasa [2012] FCAFC 166
The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by taking into account conduct that was the subject of only a reasonable apprehension, rather than conduct actually found to have occurred, in assessing whether to exercise the discretion to cancel Mr Makasa's visa under Direction 41. The correct application of Direction 41 requires reliance on findings of actual past conduct.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 November 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Full Court on Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['visa Cancellation' 'character Test' 'ministerial Discretion' 'directions to Decision Makers']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court on Appeal From the Federal Court of Australia
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in law by considering reasonable apprehensions about involvement in serious criminal conduct rather than findings that such conduct actually occurred when assessing visa cancellation under Direction No 41.']
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by taking into account conduct that was the subject of only a reasonable apprehension, rather than conduct actually found to have occurred, in assessing whether to exercise the discretion to cancel Mr Makasa's visa under Direction 41. The correct application of Direction 41 requires reliance on findings of actual past conduct.
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