Federal Court of Australia

Morgan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1489

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The originating application be dismissed.

2.    The Applicant pay the costs of the Respondent, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HESPE J:

1    This is an application for review of the decision of the Assistant Minister for Immigration made on 9 March 2026 to exercise the power under s 501BA(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). By that decision, the Assistant Minister set aside the decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal dated 13 August 2025 revoking the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa and cancelled that visa. The reasons for the Tribunal’s decision are published in Morgan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] ARTA 1406.

2    By his originating application filed on 21 May 2026, the applicant seeks the following relief (without amendment):

(1)    An order that the decision of the Assistant Minister be quashed.

(2)    An injunction restraining the Minister, by himself or by his Department, officers, delegates or agents, from making the future decision or taking the other action the subject of the proceedings.

3    Although the applicant named the Department of Home Affairs as a second respondent, the Department is not a legal entity capable of being a party to the proceedings.

4    Section 501BA of the Act provides:

501BA Cancellation of visa—setting aside and substitution of non‑adverse decision under section 501CA

(1)    This section applies if:

(a)    a delegate of the Minister; or

(b)    the ART;

makes a decision under section 501CA (the original decision) to revoke a decision under subsection 501(3A) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.

Action by Minister—natural justice does not apply

(2)    The Minister may set aside the original decision and cancel a visa that has been granted to the person if:

(a)    the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:

(i)    paragraph 501(6)(a), on the basis of paragraph 501(7)(a), (b) or (c); or

(ii)    paragraph 501(6)(e); and

(b)    the Minister is satisfied that the cancellation is in the national interest.

(3)    The rules of natural justice do not apply to a decision under subsection (2).

Minister’s exercise of power

(4)    The power under subsection (2) may only be exercised by the Minister personally.

Decision not reviewable by application under Part 5

(5)    A decision under subsection (2) is not reviewable by application under Part 5.

Ground of Review

5    The applicant’s originating application contained a single ground review:

The decision of the Assistant Minister is affected by legal unreasonableness.

6    The legal unreasonableness was said to arise from the delay between the time the brief to the Assistant Minister was prepared (November 2025) and the time the Assistant Minister made his decision (March 2026). The Assistant Minister in his reasons relied upon the fact that the applicant’s relationship with his new partner had not been tested in the community. It was said to be unreasonable for the Assistant Minister to not seek updated information and to rely on outdated material given that the Assistant Minister was aware that the applicant would be eligible for parole in December 2025. The applicant in fact had been granted parole on 13 January 2026 and had been living with his new partner for a couple of months at the time of the Assistant Minister’s decision.

7    In evaluating the applicant’s contention, it is necessary to consider the Assistant Minister’s course of reasoning.

Factual Background

8    The applicant is a citizen of New Zealand who has lived in Australia since he was four years old. The applicant has had a difficult upbringing and developed a dependency on drugs and alcohol over the years.

9    The applicant’s criminal history began in 2015. On 16 December 2015, he was sentenced to 3 years and four months’ imprisonment for drug related offences. On 10 October 2022, he was sentenced to 10 years and six months’ imprisonment for further drug-related offences including trafficking a drug of dependence in a large commercial quantity.

10    On 27 August 2024, the applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled by a delegate of the Minister under s 501(3A) of the Act due to his substantial criminal record and because he was serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution.

11    The applicant sought revocation of that cancellation decision on 29 August 2024 and made representations in support of revocation.

12    On 28 May 2025, a delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation decision pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act.

13    On 3 June 2025, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that non-revocation decision. On 13 August 2025, the Tribunal decided to set aside the delegate’s decision and revoked the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

Assistant Minister’s reasons

14    On 9 March 2026, the Assistant Minister decided to set aside the decision of the Tribunal and cancel the applicant’s visa. The Assistant Minister decided to make that decision without offering the applicant the opportunity to provide information.

15    The Assistant Minister was satisfied that the applicant does not pass the character test because of the operation of s 501(6)(a), on the basis of s 501(7)(c), and was satisfied that it was in the national interest to cancel the applicant’s visa. The Assistant Minister decided to exercise his discretion under s 501BA of the Act and set aside the decision of the Tribunal and cancel the applicant’s visa.

Character test

16    The Assistant Minister was satisfied that the applicant did not pass the character test, having been convicted in the County Court of Victoria of “traffick drug of depend large comm qty”, for which he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.

National interest

17    The Assistant Minister recognised that determining whether the cancellation of the applicant’s visa was in the national interest invited an evaluative exercise. The Assistant Minister considered that matters of national interest include, amongst other things, the protection of the community (including the seriousness of the criminal or other conduct, having regard to the circumstances and nature of the conduct and any disposition imposed by the court in respect of criminal conduct, and the risk to community, having regard to the likelihood of a person reoffending or engaging in other serious conduct and the harm that would flow if such a risk eventuated) and the expectations of the Australian community. The Assistant Minister accorded the safety of the Australian community and the need to protect the Australian community the highest priority.

Protection of the Australian community

18    Central to this judicial review application is the Assistant Minister’s assessment of the need to protect the Australian community.

19    In relation to the seriousness of the applicant’s criminal or other conduct, the Assistant Minister noted the remarks of the sentencing judge that the quantity of drugs involved indicated the applicant’s “significant role” in a “commercial activity of some size and scale”. The Assistant Minister considered the sentences the applicant received (a total effective sentence of 10 years and six months’ imprisonment) reflected the very serious nature of the applicant’s offending. The Assistant Minister gave the applicant’s traffic offending (driving while disqualified) less weight than the very serious drug trafficking related offences, but considered it was “still concerning” as such conduct “demonstrates an ongoing disrespect of the law and disregard of the safety of the Australian community”.

20    An examination of the applicant’s criminal history disclosed a “concerning escalation”.

21    The Assistant Minister concluded that the applicant’s criminal conduct was very serious and gave this factor significant weight in favour of visa cancellation being in the national interest.

22    Regarding the risk to the community, the Assistant Minister considered that any future offending of a similar nature or seriousness would have the potential to cause serious physical and/or psychological injury to members of the Australian community.

23    The Assistant Minister assessed the likelihood of the applicant reoffending in the future by considering:

44.    … available information as to matters that may have contributed to [the applicant’s] past conduct, as well as indications of remorse and the extent of [the applicant’s] rehabilitation, including their [sic] more recent conduct in custody, where relevant information is available.

24    The Assistant Minister accepted that the applicant’s childhood trauma and upbringing, drug use, undiagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), relationship breakdowns and financial difficulties were contributing factors to his criminal conduct and acknowledged that these factors provided important context in explaining the nature of the applicant’s offending history. The Assistant Minister did not accept that these matters excused or justified the very serious nature of the offending.

25    The Assistant Minister accepted that the applicant was remorseful for his offending, has demonstrated insight into his offending and has recognised the impact of his offending on the wider community.

26    The Assistant Minister acknowledged that the applicant had completed a number of different rehabilitative programs which have been aimed at addressing his drug use and dealing with grief, had engaged deeply with the prison-based Think Tank course and had been involved in introducing a high intensity drug driving behavioural change program course to the prison. The Assistant Minister acknowledged that whilst in prison, the applicant showed a commendable work ethic, displayed good behaviour and received excellent feedback.

27    The Assistant Minister acknowledged the applicant was again drug free and noted that “when he becomes eligible for parole in December 2025, he will remain on parole until August 2029 with conditions including a curfew and supervised urine analysis twice a week”.

28    Beyond his period of parole, the Assistant Minister remained concerned that in an uncontrolled environment, the applicant will need to face the inevitable stressors of life and when faced with these stressors in the past, he has relapsed and abused illicit substances. On balance, the Assistant Minister considered that there remained a real, albeit low, risk that the applicant may relapse, which has in the past resulted in the applicant offending.

29    The Assistant Minister considered the factors that ought to deter the applicant from reoffending, including employment, support from his partner, family and friends, being medicated for ADHD, his dealing with the grief rehabilitation course and his sentencing outcome.

30    The applicant was considered to have positive employment prospects upon release from custody, having already received employment offers. However, the Assistant Minister also noted that the cessation of the applicant’s employment in the past (due to his employer’s company entering liquidation) had contributed to his offending. The Assistant Minister remained concerned that should the applicant face a job loss again in the future, it may cause him considerable stress, which had in the past led him to use drugs to cope, and which may increase his risk of reoffending.

31    The Assistant Minister acknowledged that the applicant had developed an appreciation of the consequences of his actions as they relate to the opportunity to live with his family in Australia because of the prospect of being removed to New Zealand should he reoffend.

32    Particularly relevant to this application, the Assistant Minister’s reasons record (emphasis added):

88.    The [Tribunal] found that [the applicant] has a ‘very stable and supportive environment’, including the ‘very significant and genuine support from his partner, his siblings, his friends and his mother’. Similarly, his sister Kirsty submits that their family is ‘ready to support [the applicant] in every way possible – emotionally, financially, and practically – to ensure he stays on the right path’. The [Tribunal] concluded that these supports will ‘reduce the likelihood of him relapsing into drug use and offending’…

89.    I cannot reach the same conclusion as the [Tribunal] in this regard. I note that [the applicant]’s friends and family supports were available to him at the time of his offending and were an insufficient protective factor to deter him from offending and from returning to commercial drug supply despite a previous term of imprisonment.

90.    I acknowledge that the support of his partner, and his partner’s friends, is a new protective factor. However, I note that in the undated letter from [the applicant], received on 7 April 2025, [the applicant] states that he has been in a relationship with Lauren ‘for a couple of years and [that they] have known each other for three’… Given [the applicant] was remanded into custody on 21 December 2019… it appears [the applicant] and Lauren’s relationship may have began after he was incarcerated and is yet to be tested in the community. Similarly, I remain guarded in placing much weight on Lauren’s family and friends as being a protective factor against reoffending given these relationships have not yet had an opportunity to develop and be tested in the community. As such, I am cautious about giving much weight to these protective factors at this time.

33    The Assistant Minister examined other protective factors:

    The Assistant Minister acknowledged that the applicant’s treatment for his ADHD may act as a protective factor.

    The Assistant Minister acknowledged the rehabilitation courses the applicant had completed in prison had assisted the applicant with developing techniques for coping with grief, which may decrease the risk of reoffending. However, the Assistant Minister remained concerned that “in an unsupervised environment where drugs may be present and readily available, [the applicant] may relapse if faced with unexpected grief” and was therefore “wary about giving this factor significant weight as a deterrent against reoffending”.

    The Assistant Minister accepted that the applicant now recognises that any future criminal conduct may result in his removal from Australia and accepted this served as a deterrent to reoffending.

34    The Assistant Minister recorded his conclusions about the protective factors against the applicant reoffending, in the following terms:

94.    I find that, on balance, the protective factors against reoffending in this case ought to reduce the likelihood of [the applicant] reoffending. However, I note with concern that family support was previously available to [the applicant] and did not prevent his offending conduct. I further note that [the applicant] had previously served a sentence of imprisonment, which did not deter him from reoffending. I also note that his current relationship and the pro social support network that radiates from this relationship are yet to be experienced and tested in the community.

95.    Nonetheless, I have given the available protective factors weight as [the applicant] now appears to appreciate the consequences of his actions as they relate to the ongoing opportunity to live with his partner, family and friends and to developing these relationships further in Australia.

35    In reaching a conclusion that there remained a likelihood, albeit low, that the applicant may reoffend, the Assistant Minister acknowledged that the applicant:

99.    … has the protective factors of employment; the support of his partner, family and friends; being medicated ADHD; his dealing with grief rehabilitation course; and his sentencing outcome, that ought to deter him from reoffending. I also acknowledge that many of these factors are new, however, I note that the support of his family and friends was previously available to him and did not deter him from offending. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that [the applicant] appears to appreciate the consequences of his actions now, as they relate to the ongoing opportunity to live with his partner, family and friends and to developing these relationships further in Australia.

36    In assessing the overall risk of the community as unacceptable, despite the likelihood of reoffending being low, the Assistant Minister again acknowledged the applicant’s protective factors, including his relationship with his new partner, in the following terms:

104.    I also find that although [the applicant] has many protective factors, some of those, including the support of his family and friends have always existed yet were not able to impact behaviour change upon him after a previous term of imprisonment, and others, such as his current relationship, are new and have not been tested in the community. As such, I hold concerns that their efficacy as a protective factor to the protection of the Australian community is limited. I have found that on balance there remains a likelihood, albeit low, that [the applicant] will reoffend.

37    The Assistant Minister weighed heavily the need to protect the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct, in support of the visa cancellation being in the national interest, having taken into account the nature and seriousness of the applicant’s conduct, the potential harm to the Australian community should the applicant reoffend and the likelihood of reoffending.

Expectations of the Australian community

38    The Assistant Minister considered that the broader Australian community’s general expectations were that where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of Australian laws while in Australia, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Government would not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.

39    The Assistant Minister attributed this consideration significant weight towards a finding that it was in the national interest to cancel the applicant’s visa.

Discretion

40    The Assistant Minister recognised that the power under s 501BA is discretionary. In considering whether to exercise the power, the Assistant Minister considered the best interests of minor children, ties to Australia, legal consequences of the decision and impediments if removed to New Zealand.

Assistant Minister’s conclusion

41    In reaching his conclusion that the considerations against visa cancellation were outweighed by the “serious national interest considerations in this case”, the Assistant Minister accepted that the applicant was remorseful, had demonstrated insight into his offending and the harm which it has on the wider community, acknowledged the available protective factors and that the applicant appeared to recognise and appreciate the consequences of his actions to his ongoing opportunity to live with his partner and family in Australia. However, the Assistant Minister “remain[ed] concerned that in the event [the applicant] may not be able to deal with inevitable life stressors, which in the past has led to relapse and reoffending, his likelihood of reoffending may escalate” and further noted that applicant’s “rehabilitative efforts are yet to be tested in an uncontrolled environment”.

Consideration

42    The applicant submits that it was illogical for the Assistant Minister to be cautious about giving weight to the protective effect of the applicant’s relationship with his new partner when making a decision in March 2026 on the basis of that relationship not being tested in the community when the Assistant Minister was aware that there was a real possibility that the applicant would be in the community from December 2025, without seeking updated information. This alleged illogicality was said to amount to jurisdictional error in the form of legal unreasonableness.

Legal principles

43    Legal unreasonableness may be found in an ultimate conclusion or to a process of reasoning employed in the course of reaching an ultimate conclusion: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; (2018) 264 CLR 541 at [81]–[82] (Nettle and Gordon JJ), quoting Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [105] (Gageler J). See also Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [23]–[24] (Gummow ACJ and Kiefel J), [102], [132] and [135] (Crennan and Bell JJ); Plaintiff S183/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 15; (2022) 399 ALR 644 at [31], [43] (Gordon J). A finding made without a logical basis may constitute legal unreasonableness and thereby constitute jurisdictional error, at least where that finding is critical or not immaterial to the ultimate conclusion: see the discussion in EUD24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCAFC 128; (2025) 311 FCR 155 at [35]–[36] (Hill J, Cheeseman and Owens JJ not expressing a view).

44    The legal unreasonableness in the present case does not strictly concern the process of reasoning alone (cf VRRQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCAFC 117 (Anderson, O’Sullivan and Lenehan JJ) where the irrationality lay in the Tribunal’s assessment of the risk to the Australian community were the Applicant to reoffend by having regard to continued uncertainty about the applicant’s visa status, when logically that assessment had to be predicated on the cancellation of the applicant’s visa having been revoked, and in those circumstances there would not be any continued uncertainty about the applicant’s visa status). Rather, the legal unreasonableness is said to arise by adopting a particular line of reasoning in the absence of seeking further information.

45    The Assistant Minister was not under a legal obligation to accord procedural fairness before making a decision under s 501BA: s 501BA(3). The Assistant Minister was under no statutory obligation to seek up to date information. However, the failure to seek updated information can amount to legal unreasonableness depending on the reasoning adopted. As the Full Court explained in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SSVJ [2026] FCAFC 45; (2026) 315 FCR 435 at [47] (Perry, Kennett and Shariff JJ):

The Minister is, of course, empowered to make a decision under s 501BA(2) without taking any steps to provide the visa holder with an opportunity to be heard. However, if a significant time has elapsed since the decision proposed to be set aside, a decision not to invite any representations or further evidentiary material from the visa holder may have consequences for the findings that the Minister can properly make in considering whether the power should be exercised.

46    The bounds of legal reasonableness can impose constraints on the drawing of inferences about present circumstances from dated material. As Charlesworth J stated in LJTZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1209 at [48]:

… The more dated the material, the more problematic it may become in a given case to make factual findings about present day circumstances within the bounds of legal reasonableness. Much will depend on the inferences reasonably capable of being drawn about present day circumstances from the dated material.

47    Examples can be found in:

    GRCF v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 415 (Bennett J), where a finding had been made that the applicant’s attitude to seeking psychological treatment or counselling persisted at the time of the Minister’s decision, based on evidence given 10 months earlier and absent evidence as to what had transpired in the meantime.

    Ba v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 1239 (Neskovcin J), where the Assistant Minister relied on there being no information before him about whether the applicant had treated his mental health concerns, developed meaningful employment or leisure pursuits in adopting an assessment by an expert undertaken nine months previously (that had recognised that the risk could be reduced if the applicant took such steps) and finding an unacceptable risk that the applicant would reoffend, without seeking current information about whether such steps had been taken.

    SSVJ, where the Minister relied upon there being “no evidence” before him that the applicant had completed or even started a sex offenders program in concluding that the applicant was an untreated sex offender when the material before the Minister was that which had been before the Tribunal some 12 months earlier and the Minister had not sought further information.

48    A conclusion that a finding is illogical or irrational is not to be drawn simply because the Court emphatically disagrees with the finding or would have made a different finding. A decision (including a finding) will not be illogical or irrational if there is room for a logical or rational person to reach the same decision on the material before the decision maker. A decision might be said to be illogical or irrational if only one conclusion is open on the evidence, and the decision maker does not come to that conclusion, or if the decision to which the decision maker came was simply not open on the evidence or if there is no logical connection between the evidence and the inferences or conclusions drawn: SZMDS at [135].

49    Cases involving allegations of irrationality and unreasonableness involve an evaluative exercise which is necessarily fact-specific and a construction of the decision maker’s reasons in the particular case. None of the outcomes in GRCF, Ba or SSVJ dictate the outcome in the present case. As the Full Court explained in SSVJ at [36]:

Identifying similarities or differences between the facts of the instant case and an earlier case in which irrationality was or was not found will rarely (if ever) be sufficient to answer the question whether a decision is vitiated by irrationality (cf Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1; 231 FCR 437 at [41]-[42]) … The contest between the parties in the present case essentially boiled down to how the Minister’s reasons should be construed… This is ultimately a factual question and not something to be settled by reference to authority.

The Assistant Minister’s course of reasoning

50    In assessing the risk to the Australian community, the Assistant Minister concluded that there was a likelihood, albeit low, that the applicant will reoffend. In reaching this conclusion, the Assistant Minister:

(1)    Examined the factors that may have contributed to the applicant’s past offending.

(2)    Assessed the extent of the applicant’s remorse.

(3)    Evaluated the applicant’s rehabilitation and in particular the manner in which the applicant has addressed the factors that had contributed to his offending. The Assistant Minister concluded that there remained a real, albeit low, risk that the applicant may relapse into drug use which in the past had led to his offending. The Assistant Minister considered that beyond his period of parole, in an uncontrolled environment, the applicant would need to face the inevitable stressors of life and the applicant had relapsed in the past when faced with these stressors.

(4)    The Assistant Minister examined the protective factors that would deter the applicant from reoffending. One of the factors examined by the Assistant Minister was the support for the applicant from his partner, family and friends.

(a)    The Assistant Minister noted that the applicant had had the support of family and friends in the past and that had not been sufficient to deter the applicant from offending.

(b)    The Assistant Minister identified that support from the applicant’s partner and her social network were new protective factors but was cautious about giving much weight to these protective factors “at this time”. It was in this context that the Assistant Minister observed that the applicant’s relationship with his new partner had commenced whilst the applicant was incarcerated and was “yet to be tested in the community” and that the applicant’s relationships with his partner’s family and friends had not yet had an opportunity to develop and “be tested in the community”.

(c)    The Assistant Minister accepted that there were protective factors that would reduce the likelihood of the applicant reoffending and attached weight to the available protective factors.

(d)    The Assistant Minister concluded that on balance there remained a likelihood, albeit low that the applicant will reoffend.

Application of principles

51    The issue is whether, in circumstances where the Assistant Minister had recognised that the applicant would become eligible for parole in December 2025, it was legally unreasonable to adopt this course of reasoning, without seeking updated information before making a decision to cancel the applicant’s visa in early March 2026.

52    The essence of the applicant’s submission is that it was not open to the Assistant Minister to discount the weight to be attributed to the applicant’s relationship with his new partner by reason of that relationship not being tested in the community without seeking further information about the extent to which that relationship had in fact been tested in the community.

53    The question is whether it was open to the Assistant Minister to engage in the process of reasoning which he did and to make the findings which the Assistant Minister did make on the material before him: SZMDS at [133]. More specifically, the question is whether, a logical or rational decision maker could have come to the conclusion that not much weight be attributed to the applicant’s relationship with his new partner in acting as a protective factor because that relationship had not yet been tested in the community, without seeking updated information: SZMDS at [135].

54    In the present case, it is important to understand the nature of the finding made by the Assistant Minister and in particular, the meaning to be attributed to the phrase not “tested in the community” in the context of the Assistant Minister’s assessment of the applicant’s relationship with his new partner to act as a protective factor against future offending. The context was the concern the Assistant Minister had that the applicant might relapse into drug use when in an uncontrolled environment, the applicant would need to face the inevitable stressors of life.

55    Properly understood, the finding made by the Assistant Minister was not that the relationship had not been tested even momentarily in an uncontrolled environment or outside of prison. It was a finding that the relationship had not been tested outside of prison and in an uncontrolled environment in a manner that demonstrated that the relationship would act as a protective measure for the applicant in dealing with the stressors of life. The Assistant Minister was cautious about attaching weight to a new relationship that had yet to experience the stressors of life for the foreseeable future. The caution expressed by the Assistant Minister about the weight to be attached to that new relationship to act as such a protective measure was recognition of the fact that the applicant’s relationship with his partner had not had an opportunity to develop outside of prison and had yet to be subject to the vicissitudes of life for a period that was considered by the Assistant Minister to be meaningful to making an assessment of its protective effect.

56    In the context of a relationship that had commenced whilst the applicant was incarcerated and the applicant was not eligible for parole before 30 December 2025, the finding made by the Assistant Minister about the extent to which the applicant’s relationship with his new partner would act as a protective factor against future offending was a finding that, as at the date of the Assistant Minister’s decision on 9 March 2026, was reasonably capable of being drawn without seeking updated material. It was not legally unreasonable to regard a relationship that had existed outside of the prison environment for no more than eight weeks as a relationship that “had yet to be tested in the community”. In the context of the reasons, it was a finding supported by logical grounds.

57    It is noted that the applicant’s relationship with his new partner was but one of a number of “protective factors” considered by the Assistant Minister in the course of concluding that there was a likelihood, albeit low, of the applicant reoffending. Because the Court has concluded that the finding made by the Assistant Minister was not irrational, in the circumstances of this case, it is unnecessary to consider whether there is a separate question of materiality or whether legal unreasonableness in the sense of irrationality of reasoning has a requirement of materiality built into it: Masi-Haini v Minister for Home Affairs [2023] FCAFC 126; (2013) 298 FCR 277 at [49]–[52] (Markovic, Meagher and Kennett JJ); Muggeridge v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 200; (2017) 255 FCR 81 at [35(6)] (Charlesworth J, Flick and Perry JJ agreeing), EUD24 at [35]–[36]; VRRQ at [46]–[47], [68]–[69] (O’Sullivan J, Anderson J agreeing).

Disposition

58    The application for judicial review is to be dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:    9 October 2026