Federal Court. Could the applicant’s representations in relation to rehabilitation "be properly engaged with if he relied on evidence of having completed six separate courses (plus counselling) and the Tribunal only took account of the evidence relating to three of those courses"? In assessing whether an error is material, should it be assumed that the administrative decision-maker approached the review with an open mind?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Is a genuine engagement with the “representations” of the visa holder referred to in s 501CA(4)(a) a condition for the valid exercise of the power in s 501CA(4) to refuse to revoke a visa cancellation decision?
Question 2: In order to perform its statutory task under s 501CA(4), did the Tribunal needed to identify and understand clearly articulated submissions of the applicant on the issue of rehabilitation?
Question 3: If the answer to Question 2 is 'yes', could the applicant’s representations in relation to rehabilitation "be properly engaged with if he relied on evidence of having completed six separate courses (plus counselling) and the Tribunal only took account of the evidence relating to three of those courses"?
Question 4: In assessing whether an error is material and thus jurisdictional, should it be assumed that the administrative decision-maker approached the review with an open mind?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: