Federal Court. Art 12(4) of the ICCPR read: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country". Judicial review applicant argued that Australia was his "own country" by reason of having lived in Australia since the age of 4 and that, in determining whether to revoke under s 501CA(4) the mandatory visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A), Minister was obliged to put him on notice that he might make a decision which would arbitrarily deprive him of the right to enter (and remain) in Australia.
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Was the decision under 501(3A), as opposed to the decision under s 501CA(4), which rendered the judicial review applicant liable for removal from Australia under s 198 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is "yes", can it be said that there is "no scope for a procedural fairness obligation in respect of the Minister acting inconsistently with Art 12(4) of the ICCPR in relation to the decision under s 501(3A) by reason that the decision of the Minister to cancel [the applicant's] visa was mandatory upon satisfaction of the matters in that section"?
Question 3: Was the Minister required under s 501CA(4) to provide the opportunity to the applicant to make submissions on Art 12(4) of the ICCPR before making his decision whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation?
Question 4: Was the fact that the applicant was specifically asked to address the "strength, nature and duration of [his] ties to Australia" and the effect of return to his country of citizenship sufficient to put the applicant on notice that the Minister may make a decision that was not conformable with Art 12(4) of the ICCPR?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: