Federal Court. Must the deferral of the assessment of non-refoulement obligations to a subsequent protection visa application process be legally reasonable?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Does the High Court's decision in Plaintiff M1 stand as authority for the proposition that, even though decision-makers can defer consideration of non-refoulement obligations, they "may still be required to address whether the underlying facts (that is, the claimed harm or hardship that would be faced by the person on his or her return to the country in question) provide a reason to revoke the cancellation decision"?
Question 2: Must the deferral of the assessment of non-refoulement obligations to a subsequent protection visa application process be legally reasonable?
Question 3: If the answer to Question 2 is yes, was it legally unreasonable for the Tribunal here to defer the assessment of non-refoulement obligations to a subsequent protection visa application process?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: