Federal Court. Can it be said that "s 417 was exclusively intended to deal with decisions made under s 415 and that s 501J would not be engaged"? Can it be said that "a decision of the IAA was not intended to constitute a “decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to an application for, or the cancellation of, a protection visa” (s 501J(2)) despite the IAA being “established within” the AAT (s 473JA)"?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Is the decision of Robertson J in Jabbour, according to which a decision by a departmental officer not to refer a request for ministerial intervention to the Minister is amenable to judicial review for legal unreasonableness, plainly wrong?
Question 2: Does s 501J of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) apply to the Tribunal decisions referred to under s 500(1)(b) to (c)?
Question 3: Can it be said that "s 417 was exclusively intended to deal with decisions made under s 415 and that s 501J would not be engaged"?
Question 4: Can it be said that "a decision of the IAA was not intended to constitute a “decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to an application for, or the cancellation of, a protection visa” (s 501J(2)) despite the IAA being “established within” the AAT (s 473JA)"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: