Australian Immigration Daily News

Remember that famous phrase “Just when it seemed that it was safe to go back into the water……”

Likewise, it seemed based on a decision that was made by Justice Collier of the Federal Court in the case of Tesic v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) FCA 1465 last December that there might just be the possibility of a new ground for challenging a decision by the Minister under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act,  not to revoke the cancellation of a visa on character grounds.

In other words, that the door to challenging cancellation decisions might have been propped open just a tiny, tiny crack, and that there might be a new avenue open to visa holders that would enable them to contest successfully decisions by the Minister to cancel.

Sometimes it appears that a decision before the Tribunal may turn on the simplest of matters.

And that the Tribunal has apparently made an obvious error that could in theory be easily corrected (and an applicant’s visa status thus resolved).

However, even in a case of clear error, the Minister may not be prepared to concede that “the Tribunal got it wrong”.

There are times when you see news stories about visa decisions that have been made by the Department that are so amazing, crazy and lacking in compassion and common sense that you literally cannot believe the words that you are reading.

That you cannot believe that the government, in the sound administration of the migration legislation, could possibly have made such a decision.

That gives new definition to the concept of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” – a decision that is literally so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker would have made it.

Exactly how should the “best interests of children” be considered in a case involving visa cancellation on character grounds?

Or for that matter, in any other migration decision?

For example, do the “best interests” of children override all other considerations?

Can translation problems at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be a source of jurisdictional error?

And if so, under what circumstances?

This is a question that must surely occur very frequently.