Mailau v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 610

Mailau v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 610

The Tribunal was entitled, on the evidence, to give no weight to the psychological report with respect to recidivist risk, and to conclude that the applicant's age and health did not warrant attribution of weight as impediments to his removal. The Tribunal adequately considered the best interests of each relevant child in the manner the evidence required. Reliance on hearsay evidence was permissible. The Tribunal did not fail to take a relevant mandatory consideration with respect to impact on a victim, as this was either not established on the evidence or was dealt with under other heads. No jurisdictional error was made; application dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Tomasi Mailau; First Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs; Second Respondent: Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Visa Cancellation, Tribunal Review, Ministerial Directions, Mandatory Considerations, Weight of Evidence, Hearsay Evidence, Best Interests of Children, Impact on Victims
Migration Law Administrative Law Visa Cancellation Tribunal Review Ministerial Directions Mandatory Considerations Weight of Evidence Hearsay Evidence +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tomasi Mailau

Applicant

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

First Respondent

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Tribunal err by placing no weight on the psychological report?
  2. 2 Did the Tribunal err in considering the cumulative best interests of the minor children instead of each child individually?
  3. 3 Did the Tribunal err in using hearsay evidence of the applicant’s sister?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled, on the evidence, to give no weight to the psychological report with respect to recidivist risk, and to conclude that the applicant's age and health did not warrant attribution of weight as impediments to his removal. The Tribunal adequately considered the best interests of each relevant child in the manner the evidence required. Reliance on hearsay evidence was permissible. The Tribunal did not fail to take a relevant mandatory consideration with respect to impact on a victim, as this was either not established on the evidence or was dealt with under other heads. No jurisdictional error was made; application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application be dismissed with costs