Denial of PF in that s 501(3A) decision could have been made under s 501(2)?

The Appellant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), after which a delegate refused under s 501CA(4) to refuse to revoke the visa cancellation. The Tribunal affirmed the refusal cancellation. The Appellant then unsuccessfully applied to the Federal Court (FCA) for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision and eventually appealed to the Full Court of the FCA (FCAFC).

Some of the questions to the FCAFC were as follows:

Question 1: Does the FCA have "both the jurisdiction to consider and determine the legality of the cancellation decision as a threshold issue and the power to grant declaratory relief in relation to that decision in appropriate circumstances"?

Question 2: Was the Appellant denied procedural fairness in that "the Minister or the Minister’s delegate decided to exercise the cancellation power in s 501(3A) rather than 501(2) when the latter requires the person affected to be given an opportunity to be heard before the power is exercised whereas the former does not"?

Question 3: Can it be said that one of the reasons why the Appellant should not be granted leave to agitate on appeal a ground of judicial review that was not agitated below is that the Minister was deprived of the opportunity to adduce evidence below, including his state of knowledge about the Appellant's criminal history before his most recent incarceration?

Question 4: Can it be said that one of the reasons why the Appellant should not be granted leave to agitate on appeal a ground of judicial review that was not agitated below is that the Minister would have been denied the right of appeal from an adverse decision, as an appeal to the High Court could only occur if special leave to appeal were granted?

The FCAFC answered those questions as follows: