Federal Court. In BAL19, FCA decided that s 501 and PIC 4001 do not apply to protection visa applications. Can DHA delay making a decision on protection visa applications on the basis that it disagrees with BAL19 and is appealing that decision? Was FCA's decision in BAL19 plainly wrong? Does s 501(3A) apply to the cancellation of protection visas? Does s 501 operate independently from s 65? If the delay is not justified and BAL19 was not plainly wrong, should FCA issue a writ of mandamus, requiring DHA to consider according to law the protection visa application on the basis that s 501(1) does not empower the refusal of the application?
The questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Can the Department delay making a decision on a protection visa application on the basis that it is waiting for the outcome of the BAL19 appeal?
Question 2: Was the decision of the Federal Court (FCA) in BAL19 plainly wrong to the extend that it held that s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) does not apply to protection visa applications?
Question 3: Was the decision of the FCA in BAL19 plainly wrong to the extend that it held that Public Interest Criterion 4001 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) does not apply to protection visa applications?
Question 4: Does s 501(3A) apply to the cancellation of protection visas?
Question 5: Does s 501 operate independently from s 65?
Question 6: If the answer to both Questions 1 and 2 is "no", should the FCA issue a writ of mandamus, requiring the Minister or his delegate to consider according to law the applicant's application for a protection visa on the basis that s 501(1) does not empower the refusal of the application?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: