Federal Court. Appellant spent most of his years in Australia without working, due to injury. Did cl 14.1(2)(a)(ii) of Direction 65 require AAT to "consider either the appellant’s will to be productive"? Accepting that cl 14(1) requires AAT "to take into account matters of relevance to whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, apart from those specified in cl 14(1)", can it be said that "the reasons for a lack of contribution to the Australian community are such a relevant consideration"? Could AAT give lesser weight to the relationship between Appellant and his daughter "because at the time of the Tribunal’s decision she was soon to turn 18"?
The questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Did "clause 14.1(2)(a)(ii) ... require the Tribunal to consider either the appellant’s will to be productive or the reasons why the appellant had not worked following his injury"?
Question 2: "Accepting that cl 14(1) requires the Tribunal to take into account matters of relevance to whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, apart from those specified in cl 14(1)", can it be said that "the reasons for a lack of contribution to the Australian community are such a relevant consideration"?
Question 3: Could the Tribunal give lesser weight to the relationship between Appellant and his daughter "because at the time of the Tribunal’s decision she was soon to turn 18 years old and therefore cease to be a child"?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: