Federal Court. In the context of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), did the Tribunal err in assessing the legal consequences of its decision in that it wrongly found that indefinite exclusion from Australia under special return criterion 5001 of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) was an intended consequence of the cancellation of his visa by operation of law and thus necessarily of neutral weight?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: The text of para 9.1 of Direction 110 referred to legal consequences by way of the detention of unlawful non-citizens pending removal, and immigration detention pending resolution of non-refoulement and protection claims. It did not expressly refer to the legal consequence of excluded return. However, was para 9.1 exhaustive?
Question 2: In the context of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), did the Tribunal err in assessing the legal consequences of its decision in that it wrongly found that indefinite exclusion from Australia under special return criterion 5001 of Schedule 5 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) was an intended consequence of the cancellation of his visa by operation of law and thus necessarily of neutral weight?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: