Federal Court. Is it "likely that the stronger a visa-holder’s ties to Australia, the greater the consequences of permanent exclusion of the visa-holder from Australia in the event that the visa is cancelled"? Was "at least one of the purposes served by the power conferred upon the Minister under s 501(2) of the Migration Act ... to protect the Australian public"? If so, then "having regard to the broad nature of the Minister’s discretion" and to the purpose of protecting the Australian public, was it "within the Minister’s authority to come to the view that [the Applicant] represented an unacceptable risk of harm in respect of any reoffending by him"?
The Federal Court (FCA) said as follows:
1 Before the Court is an amended originating application for judicial review of a migration decision. The applicant, Mr Hunt, seeks review of a decision of the respondent, the Minister for Home Affairs (Minister), made on 22 July 2020 under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), to cancel the applicant’s Class TY (subclass 444) visa.
Some of the questions to the FCA were as follows:
Question 1: Is it "likely that the stronger a visa-holder’s ties to Australia, the greater the consequences of permanent exclusion of the visa-holder from Australia in the event that the visa is cancelled"?
Question 2: Was "at least one of the purposes served by the power conferred upon the Minister under s 501(2) of the Migration Act ... to protect the Australian public"?
Question 3: If the answer to Question 2 is "yes", then "having regard to the broad nature of the Minister’s discretion" and to the purpose of protecting the Australian public, was it "within the Minister’s authority to come to the view that [the Applicant] represented an unacceptable risk of harm in respect of any reoffending by him"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: