Federal Court. Did the withdrawal of the appellant's visa application occur by operation of s 49 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that: a) no decision was made in order for the withdrawal to take effect; b) there was no failure or refusal on the part of Minister to make a decision in relation to the visa application; c) the Minister did not make a "migration decision"; d) the Federal Circuit and Family Court had no jurisdiction under s 476 of the Act to review the withdrawal?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Did the withdrawal of the appellant's visa application occur by operation of s 49 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), with the result that: a) no decision was made in order for the withdrawal to take effect; b) there was no failure or refusal on the part of Minister to make a decision in relation to the visa application; c) the Minister did not make a "migration decision"; d) the Federal Circuit and Family Court had no jurisdiction under s 476 of the Act to review the withdrawal?
Question 2: Can it be said that "treatment of a notice of withdrawal as effective is “conduct preparatory to the making of a decision” within the meaning of s 474(3)(h) of the Migration Act and is therefore a decision for the purposes of s 474(2)"?
Question 3: Was acknowledging the notice of withdrawal, treating it as effective and refraining from considering the visa application under s 47 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) the doing or refusing to do an act or thing for the purpose of s 474(3)(g)?
Question 4: Can it be said that the "Minister’s department, by acknowledging receipt of the notice of withdrawal in Gillera and refraining from revisiting its validity, evidently satisfied itself that the notice was effective, notwithstanding the protestations that it was completed without being understood", with the result that this is a determination and therefore a migration decision under s 474(3)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?
Question 5: Is s 474(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) intended to give the Federal Circuit and Family Court a wide jurisdiction?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: