Steve v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 311

Steve v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 311

None of the grounds advanced by the applicant established jurisdictional error. The Tribunal did not overlook key evidence, was not required to treat Article 12(4) as a mandatory consideration, and the applicant's suggested constructions of the Migration Act were contrary to established authority. The application was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment on the Merits, Including Decision on Leave to Amend Grounds
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['visa Cancellation' 'judicial Review' 'character Test' 'iccpr Article 12(4)' 'principle of Legality']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'human Rights'] ['visa Cancellation' 'judicial Review' 'character Test' 'iccpr Article 12(4)' 'principle of Legality']

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

Judicial Review Application / Judgment on the Merits, Including Decision on Leave to Amend Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred by misunderstanding or overlooking expert evidence regarding the risk of reoffending' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account Article 12(4) of the ICCPR as a mandatory relevant consideration' "Whether the applicant is excluded from the Migration Act s 501CA(4) as a 'person' due to common law or international rights" 'Whether affirming the visa cancellation was legally unreasonable in light of asserted human rights']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the grounds advanced by the applicant established jurisdictional error. The Tribunal did not overlook key evidence, was not required to treat Article 12(4) as a mandatory consideration, and the applicant's suggested constructions of the Migration Act were contrary to established authority. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The applicant is refused leave to rely upon grounds 5 and 6 of his proposed further amended application for review.' 'The applicant is granted leave to file, and required to file electronically by 21 March 2018, a further amended application excluding grounds 5 and 6.' 'The amended application for review is...