Federal Court. Do all the factors under cl 14.2(1) of Direction No 79 fall into those that generally weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of an applicant’s visa? Did the Tribunal misinterpret cl 14.2(1) by finding that “overall”, the short time the applicant had contributed to the Australian community “balance[d]” his family ties in Australia?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Are certain factors listed in Direction No 79 intended to generally weigh against revoking the cancellation of an applicant’s visa, while others are intended to generally weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of an applicant’s visa?
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "yes", do all the factors under cl 14.2(1) fall into those that generally weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation of an applicant’s visa?
If the answer to Question 2 is "yes":
Question 3: Did the Tribunal misinterpret cl 14.2(1) by finding that “overall”, the short time the applicant had contributed to the Australian community “balance[d]” his family ties in Australia?
Question 4: Must cl 14.2(1)(a) always be a neutral or positive factor in favour of revocation?
Question 5: Does Direction No 79 prevent decision-makers from taking into account the length of the period of time between the applicant’s arrival in Australia and the commencement of offending?
Question 6: Is it an erroneous application of Direction No 79 to conduct a balancing exercise between the considerations described in 14.2(1)(a) and 14.2(1)(b)?
Question 7: Should the materiality of the errors be considered cumulatively?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: