Federal Court: Minister was considering whether to cancel the Applicant's visa under s 501(2). Applicant stated that "there was targeted violence [in South Sudan] against the Nuer ethnic community of which the applicant is a member, including killings, abductions, unlawful detentions, deprivation of liberty, rape and sexual violence". Minister accepted that the Applicant "would face hardship arising from famine and civil war were he to return to South Sudan". Did the Minister engage with the Applicant's representations?
In response to a natural justice letter from the Minister informing the Applicant that the Minister was considering cancelling the Applicant's visa under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Applicant made representations "that country information indicated that there was targeted violence against the Nuer ethnic community of which the applicant is a member, including killings, abductions, unlawful detentions, deprivation of liberty, rape and sexual violence".
The Minister cancelled the Applicant's visa and the only passage in the decision record that related to the above representations was as follows:
55. I have also considered [the applicant’s] claims of harm upon return to South Sudan outside of the concept of non-refoulement and the international obligations framework. I accept that regardless of whether [the applicant’s claims are such as to engage non-refoulement obligations, [the applicant] would face hardship arising from famine and civil war were he to return to South Sudan.
One of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) was whether the Minister had "engage[d] with the representations made on behalf of the applicant".
The FCA answered that question as follows: