s 501CA(4): can decision-maker defer assessment of non-refoulement claims?

High Court. "Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a claim of non‑refoulement under domestic law", is it open to the decision-maker to "defer assessment of whether the former visa holder is owed those non‑refoulement obligations on the basis that it is open to the former visa holder to apply for a protection visa"?

Some of the questions to the High Court (HCA) were as follows:

Question 1: Is a Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) Subclass 202 (Global Special Humanitarian) visa a protection visa?

Question 2: Is the power of a decision‑maker under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to revoke a decision to cancel a visa held by a non‑citizen if satisfied that there is "another reason" why that decision should be revoked a discretionary power?

Question 3: Is it probable that Parliament intended for the broad power under s 501CA(4) "to be restricted or confined by requiring the decision-maker to treat every statement within representations made by a former visa holder as a mandatory relevant consideration"?

Question 4: "Where the representations do not include, or the circumstances do not suggest, a non‑refoulement claim", is there anything "in the text of s 501CA, or its subject matter, scope and purpose, that requires the Minister to take account of any non‑refoulement obligations when deciding whether to revoke the cancellation of any visa that is not a protection visa"?

Question 5: "Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a non‑refoulement claim by reference to unenacted international non‑refoulement obligations", may that claim be considered by the decision-maker under s 501CA(4)?

Question 6: "Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a non‑refoulement claim by reference to unenacted international non‑refoulement obligations", are those obligations "mandatory relevant considerations under s 501CA(4) attracting judicial review for jurisdictional error"?

Question 7: "Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a claim of non‑refoulement under domestic law", may the claim be considered by the decision‑maker under s 501CA(4)?

Question 8: "Where the representations do include, or the circumstances do suggest, a claim of non‑refoulement under domestic law", is it open to the decision-maker to "defer assessment of whether the former visa holder is owed those non‑refoulement obligations on the basis that it is open to the former visa holder to apply for a protection visa"?

The HCA 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 articles 501CA(3) and r 2.52 interpreted
Next articleDirection 79: consideration of matter repetitiously