RDYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 108

RDYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCAFC 108

The appeal failed because, when the Tribunal's reasons were read fairly and in context, including the material before it and the parties' contentions, the Tribunal had regard to the likelihood that the appellant might reoffend and proceeded on the basis that there was a low risk of reoffending. Direction 90 required the Tribunal to have regard to that likelihood, not to make a clear or express finding about the level of risk. The primary judge therefore did not err in holding that the Tribunal complied with Direction 90.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['visa Cancellation' 'revocation of Mandatory Visa Cancellation' 'direction 90' 'risk of Reoffending' 'likelihood of Further Criminal or Other Serious Conduct' 'compliance With Ministerial Directions']
['migration Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['visa Cancellation' 'revocation of Mandatory Visa Cancellation' 'direction 90' 'risk of Reoffending' 'likelihood of Further Criminal or Other Serious Conduct' 'compliance With Ministerial Directions']

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

Migration Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Judicial Review / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal complied with Direction 90 in affirming the Minister's delegate's decision not to revoke cancellation of the appellant's visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)." 'Whether Direction 90 required the Tribunal to make a clear or express finding about the likelihood of the appellant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.' 'Whether the primary judge erred in finding that the Tribunal had regard to the likelihood of reoffending despite the absence of an express finding.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because, when the Tribunal's reasons were read fairly and in context, including the material before it and the parties' contentions, the Tribunal had regard to the likelihood that the appellant might reoffend and proceeded on the basis that there was a low risk of reoffending. Direction 90 required the Tribunal to have regard to that likelihood, not to make a clear or express finding about the level of risk. The primary judge therefore did not err in holding that the Tribunal complied with Direction 90.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs as agreed or assessed."]