Khalil v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1528

Khalil v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1528

The applicant did not possess an accrued right to have his application for review determined by the Tribunal under Direction 65. The Tribunal was required to apply Direction 90, being the Ministerial direction in force at the time of its decision. The Tribunal did not fall into jurisdictional error by doing so.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Separate Question Determination on Ground 1 of Amended Originating Application
Outcome
Ground 1 of the amended originating application dismissed; separate question answered 'No'; costs reserved; extension for appeal period if required.
Legal Topics
['jurisdictional Error' 'ministerial Directions' 'visa Refusal on Character Grounds' 'interpretation of Directions Under S 499 Migration Act']
['administrative Law' 'migration Law'] ['jurisdictional Error' 'ministerial Directions' 'visa Refusal on Character Grounds' 'interpretation of Directions Under S 499 Migration 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

Application for Judicial Review / Separate Question Determination on Ground 1 of Amended Originating Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by applying Direction 90 instead of Direction 65 when reviewing the delegate's decision under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not possess an accrued right to have his application for review determined by the Tribunal under Direction 65. The Tribunal was required to apply Direction 90, being the Ministerial direction in force at the time of its decision. The Tribunal did not fall into jurisdictional error by doing so.

Court Disposition

Ground 1 of the amended originating application dismissed; separate question answered 'No'; costs reserved; extension for appeal period if required.

Orders

  • ["The separate question set out in the orders made on 6 July 2023 be answered: 'No'." 'Ground 1 of the amended originating application be dismissed.' 'The costs of the separate question be reserved.' 'If and to the extent necessary, the time within which any appeal from this judgment and these orders must be...