Federal Court of Australia

TVVT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FCA 1595

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    A writ of certiorari issue directed to the Respondent quashing the decision of the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Citizenship dated 31 July 2025.

2.    The Respondent pays the Applicant's costs, as agreed or taxed.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BENNETT J

1    The Applicant was born on 1 January 1996 in what is now known as South Sudan. He arrived in Australia in 2006. On 26 April 2018, the Applicant was convicted of two counts of Armed Robbery and sentenced to an aggregate term of 13 months of imprisonment. Between 25 June 2019 and 29 July 2019, the Applicant engaged in further offending, in respect of which he was sentenced to four years of imprisonment.

2    On 16 July 2018, the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). On 23 July 2018, the Applicant made a request for revocation of the mandatory cancellation. On 11 February 2019, a delegate of the Minister refused, pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act, to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

3    The decision not to revoke has been subject to four reviews in the Administrative Review Tribunal (including its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal). On 31 March 2025, the Administrative Review Tribunal made a decision setting aside the February 2019 decision and finding that the cancellation should be revoked. On 31 July 2025, the Assistant Minister for Immigration exercised his discretion, pursuant to s 501BA of the Act, to set aside the March 2025 decision and to cancel the Applicant’s Global Special Humanitarian (Class XB) (Subclass 202) visa. The Applicant sought judicial review of that 31 July 2025 decision.

4    By the judicial review application, the Applicant argued that in concluding that the Applicant posed a high risk of reoffending, the Assistant Minister relied upon a risk assessment that depended materially on findings that there was an absence of recent remorse and limited insight by the Applicant, and that there was a lack of substantive information before the Assistant Minister demonstrating any reduction in that risk. In particular, the Applicant referred to and relied upon the Assistant Minister’s reasons at [70] and [72], where the Assistant Minister said that:

[70]    [The Applicant] has not expressed any recent statements of remorse with regard to his most recent offending and the ART decision at Attachment K does not make any references to [the Applicant] expressing remorse for his actions.

…

[72]    In summary, I acknowledge that [the Applicant] initially expressed some remorse for his earlier offending. However, noting that he proceeded to make contradictory statements about the nature of his offending, and to re-offend by committing very serious and violent offences, I give limited weight to these statements of remorse. Further, in the absence of any statements of remorse around his index offending, I remain deeply concerned regarding his remorse for or insight into his current offending.

5    It was argued that the Assistant Minister had constructive knowledge of expressions of remorse by the Applicant which rendered the Assistant Minister’s finding that no such expression existed irrational, illogical or not open based on the material constructively before the Assistant Minister.

6    The Applicant also referred to and relied upon the Assistant Minister’s reasons at [84] and [91], where the Assistant Minister said that:

[84]    In view of [the Applicant’s] history of relapse, and the lack of any substantive information before me regarding any significant progress made by [the Applicant] toward rehabilitation, I hold considerable ongoing concerns as to his ability and/or willingness to fully engage with much needed rehabilitation programs, counselling and drug and alcohol treatment plans. As such, I find his risk of relapse and reoffending remains high.

…

[91]    A number of factors, as outlined above, may have contributed to [the Applicant’s] offending behaviour. However, I remain concerned about [the Applicant’s] limited remorse for and insight into the very serious nature of his offending. I am also concerned that [the Applicant] appears to have not made any recent efforts towards addressing his mental health issues and while I acknowledge he has been accepted into substance abuse treatment programs, there is a lack of information to indicate that he has substantially addressed any of his addictions. I have found that on balance that there remains a high likelihood that [the Applicant] will reoffend.

7    It was argued that the Assistant Minister had constructive knowledge of matters relevant to the Applicant’s progress toward rehabilitation and recent efforts to address his mental health issues or addictions such that the Assistant Minister’s finding that there was not substantive information relating to those matters was irrational, illogical or not open based on the material constructively before him.

8    Immediately prior to the hearing, the Respondent conceded that the decision of the Assistant Minister was affected by jurisdictional error. The Respondent accepted that the Assistant Minister erred by finding that the Applicant had not expressed remorse for his most recent offending (at [70] of his reasons), and finding that there was not substantive information before him about the Applicant’s progress toward rehabilitation (at [84] of his reasons), without considering material available to him that was relevant to the assessment of the Applicant’s remorse and rehabilitation, including a report from Dr Nina Zimmerman, forensic psychiatrist, dated 26 September 2023, and a statement of the Applicant dated 10 October 2023.

9    The Respondent also accepted that the error was material. Had the Assistant Minister not made the error, his approach to remorse in the decision (in particular at [91] and [164] of his reasons), and therefore the decision itself, realistically could have been different (LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; 280 CLR 321 at [14]).

10    The Applicant and the Respondent consent to orders being made allowing the judicial review application. They propose that by consent a writ of certiorari directed to the Respondent issue, quashing the decision of the Assistant Minister made on 31 July 2025. The parties likewise agree it is appropriate that there be an order that the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs, as agreed or taxed.

11    I am therefore asked to make the orders sought by the parties by consent. In this context, it is appropriate that the Court specify the error and record its satisfaction that an error has occurred which justifies the proposed relief being granted (Mohamedali v Assistant Minister for Citizenship, Customs and Multicultural Affairs [2026] FCA 1531 (Banks-Smith J) at [9], referring to Plaintiff M19A/2024 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCA 17; 99 ALJR 816; Kovalev v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 557; 100 FCR 323; VNPC v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 921).

12    I accept that the concession as to jurisdictional error is properly made and that it is appropriate to make the orders sought jointly by the parties.

Associate:

Dated:    23 October 2026