A representation as to ‘another reason’ does not have to meet any threshold of column-inches before it must be considered

In Tran v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 126 at [123], Greenwood J said:

… The statute suggests engagement with the “representations”, “about” revocation going to a “reason or reasons”, not every individual statement, line by line, set out in the representations although, plainly enough, the representations must be meaningfully read and considered as a whole (or, put another way, see [113] of these reasons).
It may be, however, that in the relevant case one or two sentences in the representations may contain highly material information said to support “another reason” for revocation in which event, the repository of the power would need to engage, as a matter of substance, with that information in those sentences.

Charlesworth and O’Callaghan JJ agreed with this statement of principle (at [152]).

Leave a Reply