Is a s 36(1C)(b) decision a mandatory consideration under s 501(1)?

Federal Court (Full Court). "In light of the findings of the Tribunal (which are treated as findings of the Minister pursuant to s 43(6) of the [AAT Act]), and/or the direction of the Tribunal made pursuant to s 43(1) of the AAT Act", was the Minister "obliged to conclude that [the respondent] was not a danger and/or risk to the Australian community"? Should it be "implied into s 501(1) that a Tribunal’s earlier decision as to the application of s 36(1C)(b) is a mandatory relevant consideration on a subsequent consideration of the application of s 501(1)"?

A delegate refused to grant the respondent a protection visa on the basis that he was a 'danger to the Australian community', pursuant to s 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

On review, the Tribunal made the following decision under s 43(1)(c)(ii) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act):

The reviewable decision is set aside and remitted to the respondent for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant is not a danger to Australia.

Following remittal, "the Minister personally refused to grant the Protection visa, because the Minister was not satisfied that the respondent passed the “character test” in s 501(6) of the Act and, on that basis, decided to exercise his discretion under s 501(1) to refuse to grant the visa". The Minister found as follows:

[51]    Overall, I find that there remains an ongoing risk that [the respondent] will reoffend. Should [the respondent] engage in further criminal conduct of a similar nature, it could result in dangerous and violent conduct that could cause significant physical harm and/or psychological injury to members of the Australian community.

Some of the questions to the Full Court of the Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:

Question 1: Can it be said that, "in light of the findings of the Tribunal (which are treated as findings of the Minister pursuant to s 43(6) of the [AAT Act])], ... the Minister was obliged to conclude that [the respondent] was not a danger and/or risk to the Australian community"?

Question 2: Can it be said that, in light of the "the direction of the Tribunal made pursuant to s 43(1) of the AAT Act, the Minister was obliged to conclude that [the respondent] was not a danger and/or risk to the Australian community"?

Question 3: Should it be "implied into s 501(1) that a Tribunal’s earlier decision as to the application of s 36(1C)(b) is a mandatory relevant consideration on a subsequent consideration of the application of s 501(1)"?

Question 4: As a matter of principle, is it "irrational or inconsistent to decide under s 36(1C)(b) that there are not reasonable grounds for concluding that a person is “a danger to the Australian community”, but nevertheless to reach the conclusion that the person presents a sufficient level of risk to warrant exercising the discretion under s 501(1) not to grant a visa"?

The FCAFC answered those questions as follows:

The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.

Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:

Monthly Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
-
$ 29 /month
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
-
$ 49 / month
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 9 / month
$ 69 / month
Subscribe

Annual Subscriptions

Premium
Basic Content
Premium Content
-
Save $ 49 / year
$ 299 / year
Subscribe
Case Law
Basic Content
-
Case Law Content
Save $ 89 / year
$ 499 / year
Subscribe
Platinum
Basic Content
Premium Content
Case Law Content
Save $ 237 / year
$ 699 / year
Subscribe

 

Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.

Content Types

Basic Content includes basic news, some media articles and selected announcements.

Premium Content includes all our content, except for Case Law Content. In other words, it includes Basic Content, plus all our articles on legislative and policy changes, industry updates and the Migration Legislation Tracker.

Case Law Content includes Basic Content, plus case law summaries, analysis and extract, but does not include Premium Content.

Platinum Content includes Basic Content, plus Premium Content, plus Case Law Content. In other words, it includes ALL our content.

If you already have a Case Law or Platinum subscription, click on 'Login' below.

Previous articleCitizenship: special residence requirement
Next articleDirection 79: objective determination of relevance of factors?